American Civil Liberties Union

The Supreme Court handed down a mixed decision Monday for Arizona and the handful of states that have copied its anti-immigrant law, SB 1070. Striking down three of the four provisions at issue in Arizona v. United States, the Justices affirmed the federal government’s exclusive role in enforcing immigration law. On the one hand, the Court delivered a significant rebuke to legislators who tried to make being an undocumented immigrant a crime. But on the other hand, the Court let stand the discriminatory “show me your papers” provision, or Section 2(B). And while it’s true that the Court sent a warning that Section 2(B) could still be ruled unconstitutional based on pending challenges (by the ACLU and other civil rights groups) focused more directly on racial profiling and prolonged detention, it nevertheless has thrown Arizona and other states into chaos by reversing the lower courts’ decision to block the “show me your papers” law. Arizona officials immediately announced that they would begin enforcing Section 2(B), even though the Supreme Court’s ruling does not immediately lift the order blocking. The Court’s decision now sends the case back to the lower district court in Arizona for further proceedings. 

The highest court in the land has had its say. Politicians and media pundits have had their news cycle. And in Arizona, we’re back to where this all begins and ends—where the resolve of people across the state will again be tested in the coming weeks and months as the “show me your papers” provision of SB 1070 is implemented.

In Arizona, part of that resolve requires simply sorting out the facts. In their zeal to claim victory, Gov. Jan Brewer and others in Arizona have incorrectly announced that SB 1070 would take effect immediately. Inaccurate statements such as these are irresponsible and muddy the already dark waters. Yesterday, civil rights organizations, including the ACLU of Arizona, sent a letter to the attorneys representing Gov. Brewer and other defendants in the Friendly House v Whiting case, explaining that the court order forbidding implementation of SB 1070's racial profiling provision, Section 2(B), remains in place unless and until it is modified by a further order from a federal court. Until that time, no law enforcement agency in Arizona should implement Section 2(B).

Ultimately, it's not only up to the Supreme Court to decide if S.B. 1070 will stand. The American people must decide whether we will tolerate a nation with such invidious laws.