The Justice Department filed suit Tuesday against Arizona on grounds that the state's new immigration law illegally intrudes on federal prerogatives and is seeking a preliminary injunction to stop the legislation from taking effect.
The lawsuit invokes as its main argument the legal doctrine of "preemption," which is based on the Constitution's supremacy clause and says that federal law trumps state statutes. Justice Department officials believe that enforcing immigration laws is a federal responsibility, law enforcement sources said.
But the filing also contained a civil rights component as well, arguing that the Arizona law would lead to police harassment of U.S. citizens and foreigners. President Obama has warned that the law could violate citizens' civil rights, and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has expressed concern that it could drive a wedge between police and immigrant communities.
The federal lawsuit will dramatically escalate the legal and political battle over the Arizona law, which gives police the power to question anyone if they have a "reasonable suspicion" that the person is an illegal immigrant. In addition to Obama and Holder, the measure has drawn words of condemnation from civil rights groups and has prompted at least five other lawsuits. Arizona officials have defended the law and urged the Obama administration not to sue.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton first revealed last month that the Justice Department intended to sue Arizona, and department lawyers have been preparing their case. The filing included declarations from other U.S. agencies saying that the Arizona law would place an undue burden on their ability to enforce immigration laws nationwide, because Arizona police are expected to refer so many illegal immigrants to federal authorities.
The case was filed in federal court in Phoenix. A preliminary injunction halting the legislation from taking effect later this month would have to be issued by a judge. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) signed the law in April.
The preemption doctrine has been established in Supreme Court decisions, and some legal experts have said such a federal argument likely would persuade a judge to declare the law unconstitutional.
But lawyers who helped draft the Arizona legislation have expressed doubt that a preemption argument would prevail.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/06/AR2010070601928.html?hpid=topnews