By Laura DeKoven Waxman
April 16, 2012

In preparation for the Supreme Court’s consideration of the constitutionality of Arizona’s controversial immigration law, 43 cities and counties, The U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the National League of Cities joined together in an amicus brief urging the Court to uphold the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, which upheld the Arizona District Court’s injunction of certain portions of the law from taking effect. The brief was prepared by officials in the Santa Clara County Counsel’s office and filed by the county on March 23

In a March 13 alert to mayors, Conference of Mayors President Los Angeles Mayor Antonio R. Villaraigosa invited mayors to sign onto the amicus brief being prepared by Santa Clara County. “The Court’s ruling on this case could have far-reaching consequences for our country’s local jurisdictions,” Villaraigosa said. “Given this, it is of the utmost importance that the court fully appreciates the view of cities and counties regarding this historic case.”

The local government brief in Arizona v. United States argues that “the State of Arizona has created a sweeping state immigration enforcement scheme that threatens the ability of local law enforcement agencies to protect public safety” and urged the court to find the enjoined provisions unconstitutional.

The brief explains that the provisions covered by the injunction would:

• “require local law enforcement officers to investigate individuals’ immigration status, detain all arrestees until their immigration status is verified, and enforce state laws that criminalize both the failure to carry alien registration documents and any attempt by an unauthorized alien to apply for or perform work in Arizona;”

• “authorize[s] law enforcement officers to make warrantless arrests whenever an officer has probable cause to believe that an individual has committed a public offense that makes the person removable from the United States;”

• “interfere with those [law enforcement] agencies’ primary function: protection of public safety, suggesting that if these provisions are allowed to take effect, local law enforcement agencies in Arizona will be forced to prioritize the enforcement of federal civil immigration law over significant threats to public safety occurring within their jurisdictions, thereby reducing the capacity of local law enforcement agencies to detect, investigate, and prosecute serious criminal activity;”

• “instruct local law enforcement agencies to enforce Arizona’s immigration scheme through means that are unconstitutional, vague, impractical, and costly;”

• “wrongly suggest to the public that the enforcement of federal civil immigration law is the responsibility of local officials, and that basic constitutional principles do not apply when those officials are enforcing these laws.”

Finally, the brief warns that “if laws such as S.B. 1070 are allowed to take effect, immigrants – whether they are naturalized citizens, lawful permanent residents, visa holders, or undocumented individuals – will become deeply distrustful of local law enforcement officials. Such distrust will have long-term deleterious effects on the ability of local governments nationwide to protect the health and safety of all residents within their jurisdictions.”

The cities and counties which signed onto the Santa Clara County amicus brief are:

Austin (TX)

Baltimore (MD)

Beaverton (OR)

Berkeley (CA)

Boston (MA)

Bridgeport (CT)

Carrboro (NC)

Chapel Hill (NC)

Charleston (SC)

Cincinnati, Ohio

Columbia (SC)

Dallas County (TX)

Durham (NC)

Flagstaff (AZ)

Gainesville (FL)

Hallandale Beach (FL)

Laredo (TX)

Los Angeles (CA)

Madison (WI)

Miami Beach (FL)

Minneapolis (MN)

Monterey County (CA)

Multnomah County (OR)

New Haven (CT)

New York (NY)

Oakland (CA)

Omaha (NE)

Palo Alto (CA)

Phoenix (AZ)

Portland (OR)

Providence (RI)

Saint Paul (MN)

Salt Lake City, Utah

San Francisco (CA)

San Jose (CA)

San Leandro (CA)

San Luis (AZ)

San Mateo County (CA)

Seattle (WA)

Tualatin (OR)

Tucson (AZ)

Washington (DC)