SandBoxUtah: Salt Lake Tribune "Utah immigration law could hinge on fate of Arizona’s"

David Montero:
"So now the two sides wait while eight judges sort through the immigration time bomb known simply known as SB1070.

Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff read the transcripts of Wednesday’s U.S. Supreme Court hearing on Arizona’s enforcement-only law and said, based on the questioning from the justices, it was difficult to imagine how they wouldn’t uphold provisions of SB1070."........

.......Sandstrom eventually said he didn’t want to do what Arizona did as pressure mounted from the business community, leaders in Utah’s Republican Party and religious groups to avoid passing a copycat of SB1070. "For example, I don’t think it’s practical to check status on every single person on, say, a traffic stop,’ Sandstrom said. "That’s one of the things we negotiated on that bill that I think turned out better than the original language."

So instead of requiring local police to check legal status of people during a lawful stop, Sandstrom’s version only required it be checked on a felony or Class A misdemeanor stop. On other misdemeanors, the check is left to the officer’s discretion..."  (Read the article?  Click title)

SandBoxUtah: The BLT ~ Legal Times "Senator: If Court Doesn't Strike Arizona Immigration Law, Congress Will"

"If the U.S. Supreme Court upholds an Arizona immigration law after hearings this week, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and other legislators say they will file legislation to undo it.

“Congress does not intend for states to enforce their own immigration schemes,” Schumer said at a hearing Tuesday on Capitol Hill. “It is simply too damaging to our economy and too dangerous to our democracy, to have 50 different states be permitted to take their own direction when it comes to immigration policy.”

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Wednesday on Arizona’s immigration enforcement law, SB 1070, which gives police broad authority to detain individuals suspected of being in the country illegally. Schumer said the Arizona law also makes it a federal crime for any individual to fail at any time to possess documents verifying their immigration status.

At a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing, Schumer said his legislation would expressly preempt states and localities from enforcing immigration law unless doing so with the consent of the federal government, and prevent states from enacting their own civil or criminal penalties for immigration violations.

Schumer said he hopes the legislation will not be necessary, “because I do believe the Supreme Court will decide SB 1070 is not constitutional.” The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the naturalization language in Article I to mean that the establishment of the immigration laws and the manner of their execution are committed solely to the federal government, Schumer said...." (Read more? Click title)

SandBoxUtah: Deseret News "Utah awaits Supreme Court immigration decision on Arizona"

Marjorie Cortez:
"SALT LAKE CITY — When the Supreme Court takes up the constitutional challenges to Arizona's immigration enforcement law Wednesday, the seismic impact could well shake the future of Utah's own immigration law.

"There's a lot at stake. All eyes are on what the Supreme Court does," said Karen Tumlin, attorney for the National Immigration Law Center, who argued on behalf of plaintiffs who have challenged the constitutionality of Utah's immigration enforcement law, HB497. The law was passed by the Utah Legislature in 2010.

If the Supreme Court leaves in place the injunction against the Arizona law, Tumlin said the national center's next move would be to ask U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups for a "direct, full opinion on the Utah law."...."  (Read more?  Click title)

SandBoxUtah: Reuters "Court says Arizona can demand voter identification"

Tim Gaynor:
"A U.S appeals court on Tuesday ruled Arizona may require voters to show identification at the polls, a ruling likely to add fuel to the fiery debate about voting rights in a presidential election year.

But the court also ruled the state cannot demand that they show proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote in federal elections, a decision the state's attorney general said he would appeal.

That could set the stage for yet another U.S. Supreme Court showdown over a contentious Arizona law touching on citizenship issues. Next week, the high court will hear arguments over the state's effort to crack down on illegal immigration....." (Read more?  Click title)