Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued a long-awaited decision regarding immigration policy when it ruled on Arizona’s controversial SB 1070. The case before the justices asked that four provisions of the state law be found unconstitutional based on preemption – a doctrine that states that the U.S. Constitution specifically reserves some policy matters for the federal government only.
The decision in Arizona v. United States struck three provisions of the state law under the doctrine of preemption, ruling that immigration policy is a federal, not state, policy matter. The Court did not strike the most controversial provision, which allows state and local law enforcement to demand any person they stop to produce proof of their legal status. Though the Court found that this piece of the law falls outside of preemption, the Court left open the possibility that the provision may be applied in ways that are unconstitutional. Arizona law enforcement is now able to enforce the provision, but language in the decision suggests that enforcement should be cautious, and leaves open the possibility that if they go too far another lawsuit challenging the provision could succeed.
Yesterday’s decision on immigration reform is a victory for those concerned about the dangers of a patchwork of state laws attempting to control immigration. The decision on the “demand proof” section of the bill is disappointing to many of us concerned about our national security and civil rights.
The Court’s decision reminds us of the desperate need for reform of our broken immigration system. Immigration reform, including provisions from both the DREAM Act and the SMART Jobs Act, cosponsored by Senator Coons, are critical components for the United States to succeed in a global economy. Congress needs to act now to pass measures like those already introduced in the DREAM Act, SMART Jobs, and Startup 2.0, and work together to craft a comprehensive immigration solution.