Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Shannon -- now our US Supreme Court reporter.
It's on the steps of the court to give us the decision on supreme.
On senate bill 1070.
And the supremes have decided what Chan and what's the news.
-- artists bill it's gonna be struck down for now part of it looks like will be upheld there were four different sections in play here you have talked about some of these.
There -- three sections that this court has found in an opinion by Justice Kennedy are preempted by federal immigration law.
Those three portions it looks like will remain struck down now a section to be at the one that everyone has talked about that have to do with police officers that they stop some -- On another -- and another legality and what happens then is that they decide that there is some kind of reasonable suspicion after the person's already been stopped.
That they are here illegally -- do have to determine whether or not that person is here legally.
That's been the most controversy -- was the one we thought -- had the best chance of being upheld and it looks like here in this opinion from Justice Kennedy.
What he says it was improper to -- section to be the lower courts that stops -- an injunction on this of the police couldn't carry this out.
It was improper to do that before the state courts had an opportunity to construe it.
And without some showing that it forced it of the provision in fact conflicts with federal immigration -- and its objectives.
So for now -- portion struck down.
Section to be about the police being able to check immigration status after the party stop someone on a completely separate violation a potential violation.
They're sending this back down to the ninth circuit which struck down all four portions to say.
Redo it for now though we find three -- conflict with federal immigration -- -- We are ready to say that yet he goes back the ninth circuit.
I just to summarize channel that you catch your breath they're two of the steps -- scored three of the four key provisions in senate bill 1070 have been ruled invalidated.
Essentially shut down correct -- -- three of four have been ruled invalidated.
Which ones still stance make it clear.
The one stands is the one where police that they stop someone and they believe another -- say.
Speeding driving without a driver's license or a robbery and a any kind of other crime if they stop you for some.
Independent crime and to ring that's stop they find -- reasonable suspicion to believe that you're here illegally in this country.
They have a duty under this law to determine your immigration status.
That is the one that the court didn't outright say is struck down because it conflicts or overrides federal immigration -- so that police tack on immigration status.
For now looks like it's upheld -- -- the ninth circuit should not having joined it without finding more facts without.
Discovering more about how would actually play out so for now this case goes back the ninth circuit with that one piece is still in play but the other three.
Instruct hours ninth circuit -- San Francisco right.
-- it's based -- West Coast there are several settings but that is one of the sitting okay.
Not this their -- this applies directly to section six of I have it right.
And and section six authorizes state local police as you've been describing.
But to arrest immigrants without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe they've committed a crime that could -- feeling that could be robbery it is is that.
That is out of.
I started -- rescue bill.
It's -- interactive actually that section is one of the ones that was struck down the one about how the section to be.
Which allows them if -- stop someone have a reasonable suspicion about their status in this country today and determine go through with determining their illegal immigration status or legal immigration status.
But the section you reference making an arrest based on probable cause but without a proper warrant -- has been struck down by the court.
OK this can be a little confusing too because -- section to be in section six are quite similar.
And I just want to read section to be so our audience understands what we're talking about here.
It requires its state local police officers attempt to determine the immigration status of any individual stopped or detained.
If the officer reasonably suspect the person is in the United States -- legally.
And and now you're giving the police officer the authority.
To use their judgment if they suspect there are here illegally and -- upon which basis that would occur is.
It's something that I guess would come down -- the local level police officers standing on the are on the side of -- -- if there were traffic stop the continues now.
It also requires that law enforcement officers -- immigration status of anyone has been arrested before the person can be.
So before there were able to drive on or go home or continue on to their job -- Wherever they were headed they have to determine whether or not they are here legally or not correct -- Yes and and basically what the court is saying it that's action to be this this power of the police to ask about that immigration status to acquire intuit.
Basically -- -- could be challenges to it after it goes into effect but for now.
The court found that the ninth circuit was wrong to enjoin it or to you know have an injunction in place to stop police officers.
Being able to carry out that portion of the bill before it went into effect in -- -- it accurately see how it would play out.
Those other three provisions we talked about this sport is convinced they won't work there in conflict with federal -- on some way but that -- about the police inquiring immigration status for now.
It stands they said the ninth circuit was jumping the gun essentially by putting an injunction in place.
So now they're saying it can play out in Arizona.
And also -- -- opinion did say that doesn't mean once it goes into -- back there can't be other legal challenges once people see how it actually plays out of practice.
There can be other legal challenges to it but for now.
There's not enough evidence there's not enough but in Iraq heard that would convince this court it's proper to enjoin the law report ever takes it back -- that one here is in a season and it.
And here is another one has kicked out -- -- right five C it makes it a crime for any illegal immigrant apply for work.
Publicly solicit or perform work within the State's borders violators would face six months -- judge when -- governor fine and three years of probation.
Is that now out on that and now he enjoyed at a lower level.
This would make it a state crime under -- -- on a lot of a lot of solicit work.
The court found and that unfortunately haven't had a chance -- -- and -- some weight down.
That conflicts with federal law or it overrides federal -- some way so for now that provision about illegals going to seek out and solicit work that being a state crime in Arizona that portion is struck down.
Heart one more thing here makes it a crime under state law for an illegal immigrant to fail to apply for registration document -- -- -- to carry registration papers if they have been issue.
Violators face of twenty days in jail for a first offense that also.
That's been struck down as well -- -- this is all fascinated that as it develops.
Do you recall what Jan Brewer the governor of Arizona says that she would do in her state.
If she -- to be successful the High Court.
Was he said he would go forward with clever parts of the -- did survive and continue to try to battles you in some way navy read draft have another piece of legislation.
Take another bite at the apple.
I mean this is the final court in the land so this legal talent -- and for those particular provision.
-- but there are other grounds on which they could be challenged there are those on the other side of this Casey said what ever survive they already have a lawsuit waiting in the wings ready to be filed hoping to get act here.
So SB 1070 -- the part of the person I did survive it is far from over on that one provision that allows police to check immigration status.
You can imagine as soon as police officers began to carried out the law goes into effect and they see how it works in practice.
A loss it will immediately be filed several groups -- already indicated that is plan.
I think that is a great point -- and all of an electric -- -- just for a moment I eyebrow I need to just ask one question.
Again I just want to ask you said it's gonna go back to the ninth circuit and that they have initially and joined this provision.
Are you saying that the court didn't.
Didn't overrule that but is asking for further interpretation.
If it gets talked what is it for the ninth circuit to decide.
It sounds like what's gonna happen is it's it's possible that it goes back nights -- -- you've got it right on the conditions that were saying.
Have that you -- -- that part is proper but is this fight over section to be.
Especially with the -- -- is you know what we decided here that it stands for now it doesn't -- -- other potential challenges.
So whether or not they want the ninth circuit you're making further at this point or they're simply saying the three that were sending back to you that you were correct on that we agree with you that's -- done deal.
It looks like a legal challenge is one thing we know fresher over that section to be.
Which left at least check immigration status that is far from over at least a portion of this goes back to the ninth circuit and even if it does want to practice and governor brewer starts having police officers and -- -- -- carry it out.
We know all the legal -- -- far -- -- that likely want someone gets stopped it and said they would bring him back Shannon --
Filter by section