|
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Wednesday, July 28, 2010
CONTACT:
Adela de la
Torre, NILC, (213) 400-7822; delatorre@nilc.org
Maria Archuleta, ACLU, (212) 519-7808 or 549-2666; media@aclu.org
Jon O'Neill, ACLU of Arizona, (602) 773-6007; joneill@acluaz.org
Laura Rodriguez, MALDEF, (310) 956-2425; lrodriguez@maldef.org
Karin Wang, APALC, (213) 241-0234 or 999-5640; kwang@apalc.org
Marco Loera, NDLON, (602) 373-3859; mloera@ndlon.org
Leila McDowell, NAACP, (202) 463-2940 ext. 1021; lmcdowell@naacpnet.org |
|
PHOENIX --
Ensuring that
Arizona law enforcement will not be required to demand "papers" from
people they stop who they suspect are "unlawfully present" in the U.S.,
a federal court in Phoenix today blocked key provisions of Arizona's
racial profiling law, scheduled to go into effect on July 29, pending a
final court ruling on its constitutionality. The ruling came in a
lawsuit filed by the Department of Justice challenging the Arizona law.
The ruling vindicates similar claims made by the National Immigration
Law Center and a coalition of civil rights groups in a separate lawsuit
challenging the discriminatory measure.
The blocked sections under the law include the following provisions:
• The requirement that police officers investigate the immigration
status of all individuals they stop if the officers suspect that they
are in the country unlawfully;
• The mandatory detention of individuals who are arrested, even for
minor offenses that would normally result in a ticket, if they cannot
verify that they are authorized to be in the U.S.;
• The new statute imposing state criminal penalties for non-citizens
failing to register with the Department of Homeland Security or failing
to carry registration documents;
• The provision for warrantless arrest of individuals who are deemed by
state or local police officers to be "removable" from the U.S.; and
• The new state statute making it a crime for alleged undocumented
immigrants to work.
The court blocked the provision that would create a ban on undocumented
persons applying for, soliciting, or performing work. However, the
court did not block the provisions that prohibit day laborers from being
hired if the party hiring them impedes traffic. The civil rights
coalition maintains that these sections violate free speech protections
and are confident that they, too, will ultimately be barred as
unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
The civil rights coalition includes the National Immigration Law Center
(NILC), the ACLU, MALDEF, the Asian Pacific American Legal Center (APALC)
- a member of the Asian American Center for Advancing Justice, ACLU of
Arizona, the National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON), and the
NAACP. The law firm of Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP is acting as
co-counsel in the case.
The coalition's lawsuit, filed on May 17, challenges SB 1070 on the
grounds that it invites the racial profiling of people of color,
violates the First Amendment, and interferes with federal law.
According to the coalition, the law would subject massive numbers of
people -- both U.S. citizens and noncitizens -- to racial profiling,
improper investigations, and detention.
The following quotes can be attributed to members of the coalition, as
listed below.
Linton Joaquin, General Counsel, NILC
"With today's ruling, Judge Bolton enjoined the most egregious
provisions of SB 1070, a dangerous enactment that threatens the
fundamental rights of countless Arizonans and visitors. Other states
following in Arizona's misguided footsteps should consider themselves
forewarned: attempts to trample on the constitutional rights of
communities of color in this country must not be permitted. We look
forward to showing, through our lawsuit, that this pernicious law should
be taken off Arizona's books permanently."
Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU:
"This is a major step that will help protect the residents of Arizona
against racial profiling and discrimination, and the Obama
administration deserves praise for its principled decision to challenge
this law despite pressure to stay silent. A single state's frustration
with federal policy cannot be allowed to hijack federal authority or
dictate federal priorities in ways that impede effective law
enforcement, threaten the rights of citizens and non-citizens alike and
violate core American values."
Nina Perales, Regional Counsel Southwest Region for MALDEF:
"Today's ruling guts the unconstitutional immigration scheme that
Arizona wanted to establish. The judge's decision further shows that SB
1070 is an unconstitutional attempt by the state to take over the
federal immigration system within Arizona's borders. States around the
nation should take heed that any similar efforts will not succeed."
Alessandra Soler Meetze, Executive Director of the ACLU of Arizona:
"This is a first step toward a victory for civil liberties in Arizona.
We eagerly anticipate proving to the court that this reactionary racial
profiling law violates the Constitution so we can begin the real work of
crafting practical solutions that address our nation's immigration
concerns rather than violate fundamental American values."
Julie Su, Litigation Director of APALC:
"We applaud the judge for seeing the imminent danger of having this law
enacted. SB 1070 presents a distinct and separate immigration scheme
that conflicts with federal law and policy, and would have a devastating
impact on Asian Americans, Pacific Islanders, Latinos and other people
of color in Arizona. Indeed, some of those negative effects have already
been felt. This ruling makes clear that intimidation of immigrant
communities, pretextual stops to ask for 'papers,' and rhetoric about
who belongs in Arizona and who doesn't under the guise of enforcing SB
1070 should cease immediately."
Pablo Alvarado, Director of NDLON:
"If history is any guide, the road ahead in Arizona will be a long one.
Today was one stop along the way, and we while we have complete faith in
the legal process to ultimately defend the United States Constitution,
we will not declare victory until SB 1070 is stopped in its entirety and
until civil rights of all people in Arizona are fully protected."
Organizations and attorneys on the case, Friendly House et al. v.
Whiting et al., include:
• NILC: Joaquin, Karen Tumlin, Nora A. Preciado, Melissa S.
Keaney, Vivek Mittal and Ghazal Tajmiri
• ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project: Lucas Guttentag, Omar Jadwat,
Cecillia Wang, Tanaz Moghadam and Harini P. Raghupathi
• MALDEF: Perales, Thomas A. Saenz, Cynthia Valenzuela Dixon,
Victor Viramontes, Gladys Limón, Nicholás Espiritu and Ivan
Espinoza-Madrigal
• ACLU Foundation of Arizona: Dan Pochoda and Annie Lai
• APALC: Su, Ronald Lee, Yungsuhn Park, Connie Choi and Carmina
Ocampo
• NDLON: Chris Newman
• NAACP: Laura Blackburne
• Munger Tolles & Olson LLP: Bradley S. Phillips, Paul J.
Watford, Joseph J. Ybarra, Susan T. Boyd, Yuval Miller, Elisabeth J.
Neubauer and Benjamin Maro
• Roush, McCracken, Guerrero, Miller & Ortega: Daniel R. Ortega,
Jr.
Today's order by Judge Bolton is available at
http://www.nilc.org/immlawpolicy/LocalLaw/US-v-AZ-prelim-inj-notice-of-order-2010-07-28.pdf
The motion for a preliminary injunction can be found at
www.nilc.org/immlawpolicy/LocalLaw/Friendly-House-v-Whiting-PI-MotionBrief-2010-06-04.pdf.
More information about the Arizona law and this lawsuit can be found at
www.nilc.org/immlawpolicy/LocalLaw/index.htm#fed_lit.
A new ACLU video about how the SB 1070 invites racial profiling can be
found at
www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights-racial-justice/would-you-ask-man-his-papers.
###
(This news release has been revised
since it was first posted on July 28. Previously, the paragraph
immediately following the list of provisions blocked by the court read,
"The court did not block the provision that criminalizes the solicitation
of employment on public streets or the provision that forbids local
police agencies from adopting policies that limit or restrict
enforcement of federal immigration laws.")
|
