By Laura DeKoven Waxman
April 25, 2011

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled in an April 11 decision that the most contested provisions of Arizona's controversial immigration law (S.B. 1070) will remain blocked from taking effect, upholding a July 28 ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton, which enjoined four major parts of the law from going into effect pending a trial.

The four provisions affected would:

• Require police to question a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws if there is a reasonable suspicion the person is in the country illegally;

• Require all immigrants to obtain or carry immigration papers;

• Make it a state criminal offense for an illegal immigrant to seek work or hold a job; and

• Allow police to arrest suspected illegal immigrants without a warrant.

The July 28 ruling came in response to a suit filed by the U.S. Department of Justice, which challenged the constitutionality of the Arizona law. The Justice Department's brief explained that "the Constitution and federal law do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country," and that "a patchwork of state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal immigration enforcement."

The 9th Circuit ruled only on Bolton's order, not on the legality of the Arizona law. That will come later, and it's felt that the judges provided strong indications that they would accept the administration's argument that the law is unconstitutional.

The U.S. Conference of Mayors joined a number of individual cities and California counties in amicus briefs filed with both the District Court and the 9th Circuit. In the 9th Circuit brief, they argued that by passing S.B. 1070, "the state of Arizona seeks to impose a comprehensive state immigration enforcement regime that will threaten the ability of local governments and local law enforcement agencies to protect public safety." They further argue that, "The provisions of S.B. 1070 that most significantly undermine the ability of local governments to protect public safety…were preliminarily enjoined by the district court."