San Francisco, CA, United States (AHN) – Federal appeals court judges in San Francisco grilled lawyers Monday about an Arizona law that allows local police to question anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant.

The law is being contested by the Obama administration’s Justice Department, which sued to block Arizona from enforcing it.

Justice Department attorneys argue that it creates unconstitutional ethnic profiling of Hispanics.

They also say Arizona lawmakers overstepped their authority.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals judges focused questions on when local police authority tramples the civil rights of suspected illegal immigrants.

Constitutional law requires that police have a reasonable suspicion to believe that someone committed a crime before they can be stopped and questioned.

Ethnic background – such as Hispanics who have high rates of illegal immigration – is not considered a reasonable suspicion.

John J. Bouma, the attorney representing Arizona, said the law, Senate Bill 1070, was intended to stop illegal immigration, not to target Hispanics with a racist government policy. An estimated 12 million illegal immigrants live in the United States.

“When you look at this statute, the intent is to deal with illegal aliens,” Bouma said. “Arizona has a long and proud tradition of a Hispanic population, and nobody is trying to take away from that.”

He also said Arizona was trying to deal with illegal immigration because of “a federal government that has been unable or unwilling to solve” the problem.

A Justice Department attorney argued that Arizona lawmakers have no right to take over an authority the Constitution assigns exclusively to the federal government.

“This is an extraordinary state statute,” said deputy solicitor general Edwin S. Kneedler.

A provision of the state law that can impose criminal liability on immigrants who fail to show their registration documents when questioned by police is “clearly preempted” by federal authority, Kneedler said.

“First of all, it’s a direct regulation of immigration,” he said.

Although the three-judge panel’s decision could take weeks or months, their questions Monday indicated skepticism of the Justice Department’s arguments.

At one point, Judge John T. Noonan Jr. told Kneedler, “You keep saying the problem is that a state officer is told to do something. That’s not a matter of preemption. . . . I would think the proper thing to do is to concede that this is a point where you don’t have an argument.”

The Justice Department lawsuit filed in July has intensified criticism of the Obama administration’s immigration policy.

Republicans say President Obama has failed to take adequate measures to stop the problem.

Obama has said he agrees a new policy is needed to stop illegal immigration but added that the Arizona law is the wrong tactic.

The Justice Department won the first round in opposing the state law last summer when U.S. District Judge Susan R. Bolton issued a court order that blocked key provisions.

The order forbade police from checking the immigration status of persons at the scenes of crimes unrelated to illegal immigration.

The order also prevents police from arresting suspected illegal immigrants without warrants or who fail to carry registration documents.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who attended the hearing Monday, has pledged a tough legal defense of the state law.

Arizona legislators who attended the hearing said afterward they believe the state law stands a good chance of surviving court action.

Legal experts say it is likely to be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

View full post on All Stories