/ Modified jul 11, 2012 10:17 a.m.

Following SB1070 Decision, Other States Act

Alabama, Georgia ask courts to lift bans based on Supreme Court ruling

By Jude Joffe-Block, Fronteras Desk

PHOENIX — In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Arizona's immigration enforcement law, legal battles continue in South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Indiana and Utah, which all passed similar laws.

The Supreme Court struck down several provisions of Arizona's law, but the court did allow the "stop and check" provision to proceed for the time being. That could have implications for four other states.

That provision of Arizona's law, also known as Section 2B, directs police to check the immigration status of people they stop if they have a reasonable suspicion the person is in the country illegally.

That section was replicated in Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina and Utah's laws, though injunctions have prevented the provision from being implemented in all of those states so far, except Alabama.

Litigation had been placed on hold in those states while the Supreme Court ruled on Arizona's law.

Now, with the high court's verdict in, litigants in Alabama and Georgia filed updated briefs to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals late last week.

Georgia's lawyers are arguing the state should be able to implement police immigration status checks, since the Supreme Court allowed Arizona's provision to go forward.

"There is kind of an argument about what status quo should prevail while this thing gets sorted out, and there is a lot to sort out," said Hiroshi Motomura, a professor at UCLA School of Law who also informally advised some of the groups who challenged state immigration laws.

Motomura says the fact that the Supreme Court didn't strike down Arizona's Section 2B doesn't guarantee that lower courts in other states will necessarily lift the blocks on similar provisions.

"There are subtle differences in the language of each of these statutes and subtle differences in what that language might allow in terms of questioning people about immigration status, and in terms of allowing them to be detained," said Motomura. "Those subtle differences could cause the balance to tip differently in terms of what status quo is going to be preserved while the litigation continues."

In South Carolina, a federal district judge who had previously blocked that state from enacting police immigration check announced Monday that provision would remain on hold until the case goes before a federal appeals court.

Fronteras Desk is a collaborative project of public media entities in Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico and Texas, including Arizona Public Media.

By posting comments, you agree to our
AZPM encourages comments, but comments that contain profanity, unrelated information, threats, libel, defamatory statements, obscenities, pornography or that violate the law are not allowed. Comments that promote commercial products or services are not allowed. Comments in violation of this policy will be removed. Continued posting of comments that violate this policy will result in the commenter being banned from the site.

By submitting your comments, you hereby give AZPM the right to post your comments and potentially use them in any other form of media operated by this institution.
Arizona Public Media broadcast stations are licensed to the Arizona Board of Regents. Arizona Public Media and AZPM are registered trademarks of the Arizona Board of Regents.
The University of Arizona