Immigration game changer?

The Supreme Court backs Arizona on law that punishes businesses hiring illegal immigrants.

The 5-3 ruling is a victory for groups who support greater immigration enforcement at the state level. And it’s a blow to immigration advocates who say immigration enforcement should only be handled
by federal authorities.

Read the decision here.

Arizona passed the Legal Arizona Workers Act in 2007. It requires companies use free federal databases, such as E-Verify, to check the documentation of employees. It also gives the state the right to suspend the licenses of business that “intentionally or knowingly” violate those verification requirements.

"Arizona has taken the route least likely to cause tension with federal law," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts, who authored the decision. "In exercising that authority, Arizona has taken the route least likely to cause tension with federal law...it relies solely on the Federal Government’s own determination of who is an unauthorized alien, and it requires Arizona employers to use the Federal Government’s own system for checking employee status."

No doubt legislators across the country are going to now take a closer look at this bill. Many legislators, including those in North Carolina, have discussed or introduced bill that would give states greater authority in enforcing immigration laws.

Roberts was supported by his four conservative colleagues.

In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said permitting states to make E-Verify a mandatory program improperly puts states in a position of making decisions that directly affect expenditure and depletion of federal resources.

"Because state laws requiring use of E-Verify frustrate the significant policy objectives underlying this decision, thereby imposing explicitly unwanted burdens on the Federal Government," she wrote, "I would hold that federal law impliedly  preempts the Arizona requirement."

Sotomayor: Appeals court where "policy is made"

Questions about a statement the high court nominee made at a Duke forum may be the first test she needs to overcome before getting confirmed.

Thanks to our friends at the News & Observer for this tip.

Critics say this statement she made at 2005 forum while explaining the difference between district and appeals court justices shows she'll be a judge who legislates from the bench.

“All of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with Court of Appeals experience. Because it is – Court of Appeals is where policy is made,” she said. “And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don't ‘make law,' I know.”

The audience laughed.

“OK, I know. I know. I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it. I'm, you know,” she said to more laughter.

“Having said that, the Court of Appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating. It's interpretation, it's application.”

She is not without her defenders. The former Duke University law professor, who moderated the forum, has already dismissed criticisms over the remark.

“Judge Sotomayor's comment was innocuous and true,” Erwin Chemerinsky, now dean of the University of California-Irvine law school, wrote in an e-mail to The (Raleigh) News & Observer.

“Appellate judges and Supreme Court justices must make choices about the law that include consideration of policy issues. Every first-year law student knows this. I am amazed that anyone is making anything of this comment.”

In a blog post for the New Republic, Chemerinsky writes Sotomayor would be “terrific for the Supreme Court and the future of constitutional law.”

“As a woman, a Latina, a person who has faced a lifelong serious illness (diabetes), and a person who grew up in modest circumstances, Sotomayor brings experiences that are unrepresented or largely absent from the current court. These certainly will influence her rulings and they also may help in the most important task for a Democratic appointee on the current court: persuading Justice Anthony Kennedy, the key swing justice on almost every closely divided issue. Sotomayor's background, as well as her intellect and experience, make her ideally suited for this role.”

Karl Rove on the Sotomayor pick

High court ruling won't stop S.C. sheriff

The sheriff in Beaufort County, S.C., says a Supreme Court decision to overturn felony charges against an illegal immigrant will not stop his own investigation of forged employment documents at county businesses.

Last week, the Supreme Court overturned charges of "aggravated identity theft" against an illegal immigrant in Illinois because he didn’t know he was using another person’s Social Security Number.

Sheriff P.J. Tanner told the Beaufort Gazette that a countywide audit of businesses turned up about 194 employees at 22 businesses that may have used falsified or stolen identities to get jobs. Tanner said he never intended to charge them with anything but misdemeanor forgery unless his investigation revealed further charges are appropriate.

The sheriff's investigation of 11 businesses netted five arrests in the past two months. All the suspects were charged with forgery, which could result in prison time.

He said his cases don’t involve identity theft, thus aren’t affected by the court’s decision.

"I think the Supreme Court's decision was correct," Tanner said. "Most of the Social Security numbers that have been found to be used by those that are foreign-born illegals to obtain work ... are just false. They're not connected to anyone."