Your editorial of Aug. 23 titled “Judge doesn’t have choice on ‘papers please’” is completely wrong on the law.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to allow SB 1070’s “papers” provision to go into effect was based only on the narrow legal claim brought before the court — a fact the court itself addressed in its opinion.
Our case brings other claims and new evidence that were not before the Supreme Court, including evidence that the law was unconstitutionally enacted with discriminatory intent, and that the law will lead to unconstitutional detention.
The Arizona decision does not address this evidence and opens the door for challenges like the one we’ve presented.
Linton Joaquin
General Counsel
National Immigration Law Center
Los Angeles, Calif.
Comments by RLG attorney Brian Bergin:
Linton’s letter seems to echo an argument made in the papers they submitted to the District Court. Indeed, the ACLU’s recent motion does make new arguments. They tried to “thread the needle” and find avenues for challenge that were not precluded by the Supreme Court opinion. Judge Bolton, however, raised the specific language of the Supreme Court opinion, which explained that the opinion does not foreclose the ability to bring “post-enforcement” challenges. Ultimately, Judge Bolton will rule whether there remains room for this “pre-enforcement” challenge.
Also:
EXCLUSIVE: Reflections: Before there was SB1070, how it came to be/Rose Law Group Reporter
