lawyer

Mar. 5,

Federal appeals court in Arizona upholds on free speech grounds a ruling that prevents police from enforcing provision of state immigration law that prohibits people from blocking traffic when seeking or offering day labor services. MORE

Sep. 7,

Federal Judge Susan Bolton paves the way for the most controversial section of Arizona’s sweeping immigration legislation, provision requiring authorities to verify the status of people who they suspect are in the country illegally, by denying a request by a coalition of civil rights groups to bar the provision. MORE

Federal District Judge Susan Bolton rules that Arizona can enforce the most contentious section of its immigration law, provision that requires police officers to question the immigration status of those they suspect are in the country illegally. MORE

Editorial expresses support for lawsuit brought in federal court against the portion of Arizona's immigration law that requires police officers to check the immigration status of those they suspect of being in the country illegally; argues that the provision, upheld by the Supreme Court, violates federal law and the Constitution, and unfairly targets and harms Latinos. MORE

Editorial contends that the Supreme Court ruling on Arizona's immigration law should be a final warning for states seeking to set their own immigration enforcement policies; warns that the portion of the law the court did not strike down still poses serious challenges to civil rights in immigrant communities; urges the Obama administration to do all it can through the Homeland Security Department to mitigate the racial profiling built into the law. MORE

Bill Keller Op-Ed column contends that the Supreme Court decision that upheld the requirement in Arizona's immigration law that police check the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being in the country illegally raises the question of why America does not have a national identification card; asserts that a fraud-proof, limited-use national identification card is an essential component to any kind of comprehensive immigration reform. MORE

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia draws criticism for attacking Pres Obama's decision on deportation of illegal immigrants who arrived in the US as children during his dissent in the Arizona immigration case; comments are widely seen as a politically-motivated departure from Supreme Court protocol. MORE

News analysis; Supreme Court's mixed decision on Arizona's tough immigration enforcement law has laid the ground for years of legal and political wrangling in many states over racial profiling and civil rights, making it likely that the court will be asked to revisit immigration. MORE

Supreme Court upholds, 8-0, key part of the Arizona immigration law that requires the police to check the immigration status of people they detain if they have reason to suspect that the individual might be in the country illegally; justices are split on three other provisions, with the majority rejecting measures that subject illegal immigrants to criminal penalties for activities like seeking work. MORE

Both supporters and opponents of Arizona's immigration law express surprise, confusion and a measured sense of victory over the Supreme Court's mixed decision on the law. MORE

News analysis; the Supreme Court’s mixed decision on Arizona’s immigration law does not seem likely to unleash a new wave of legislation by other states to crack down on illegal immigration; ruling only offers a narrow legal opening for action by states and also affirms the primary role of the federal government in developing immigration policy. MORE

Pres Obama and Mitt Romney, out on the campaign trail, react to the Supreme Court’s decision on Arizona’s strict immigration law; ruling offers Pres Obama an opportunity to mobilize Latino voters in Western states worried about racial profiling, while Mitt Romney defends states' aggressive efforts to fight illegal immigration in an attempt to appeal to conservatives concerned about border security. MORE

Editorial praises the Supreme Court for rejecting three sections of Arizona's immigration law, but argues that it has failed to deal forthrightly with the law's racial context; notes that mandate for police officers to verify immigration status remains intact, ensuring that racial profiling will continue to be a problem for Arizona's Hispanic population. MORE

Supreme Court justices across the ideological spectrum seem inclined to uphold the controversial part of Arizona's immigration law, the provision that requires law enforcement officials to determine the immigration status of people they stop and suspect are not in the United States legally; court's ruling, expected by June, may be a split decision that upholds parts of the law and strikes down others. MORE

Hundreds of demonstrators gather in front of the Supreme Court, calling on justices to strike down Arizona's immigration law; protestors argue that if upheld, law would unleash a wave of discrimination in the state. MORE

Editorial scores Chief Justice John Roberts Jr and other conservative members of the Supreme Court for readily accepting Arizona's defense of its immigration law; holds justices see the main problem as an inadequate federal immigration policy, rather than the reign of terror the law has created for Arizona's illegal population. MORE

Russell Pearce, author of Arizona’s law expanding the immigration enforcement powers of police, defends it in a Senate hearing under sharp questioning from Democrats; hearing comes day before the Supreme Court is to hear arguments on the statute. MORE

Editorial holds use of the word 'interpose' in government's brief in the Supreme Court case regarding Arizona's immigration law underlines how the law's spirit resembles something out of the era of segregation and secession; contends Arizona's law gets in the way of a single, national approach to immigration and violates the country's commitment to racial equality. MORE

Many states are watching to see if the Supreme Court upholds Arizona's tough immigration law, which has inspired similar laws across the country; constitutional lawyers on both sides of the argument say the case raises fundamental questions about federal powers. MORE

Op-Ed article by law Prof Peter J Spiro asserts that immigrant interests will be better served if the Supreme Court upholds Arizona's tough immigration law; contends that the law is so misguided that it will eventually be phased out and its supporters will suffer political consequences. MORE

Editorial urges the Supreme Court to forcefully repudiate Arizona's immigration law; asserts that the law invites unfettered racial profiling, the abuse of police power and, if allowed to stand, will open the door to states' writing their own foreign policy, in defiance of the Constitution. MORE

Supreme Court is set to hear arguments related to Arizona's controversial immigration law, which seeks to push illegal immigrants out of the state by making it hard for them to go about their lives and earn a living; state's illegal immigrant community, inured to secretive lives of fear and exploitation, are holding out little hope that any decision by the court could improve their situation. MORE

Editorial lauds Federal Judge Susan Bolton for blocking a provision of Arizona's extremist immigration law that was aimed at getting rid of day laborers by denying them the right to look for work on the street; contends Bolton rightly criticized the provision for being unconstitutional, and for disingenuously invoking traffic safety to achieve a political end. MORE

Dec. 14,

Editorial urges the Supreme Court to back the federal court ruling blocking parts of Arizona's notorious immigration law and reassert that the federal government, not states, should control immigration policy. MORE

Supreme Court announces that it will hear case challenging Obama administration attempts to block parts of Arizona's immigration law, a tough anti-immigration measure that the White House says cannot be reconciled with federal law and policies; case joins a crowded Supreme Court docket, thrusting the court into the center of American political life as it agrees to hear three cases that could help determine which party dominates elections. MORE

Show More Loading