What does the Arizona Ruling mean for Alabama?
What does the Arizona Immigration Law Ruling mean for Alabama?
While Arizona’s immigration law was the first to reach the U.S. Supreme Court, a similar but tougher law in Alabama faces its own legal challenge. That case has been on hold, pending a ruling on Arizona’s law. As WBHM’s Andrew Yeager reports, the question now is — what does Arizona mean for Alabama?
State Senator Scott Beason’s phone has been ringing off the hook.
“Everybody calls and says have you read the opinion yet and my answer is always, ‘no’ been on the phone constantly since…”
Beason sponsored the Alabama law. The Republican stands outside the Gardendale Civic Center, north of Birmingham, as a couple of reporters line up. Beason says the ruling is a mixed bag. He’s happy the so-called “show me your papers” provision was upheld. Not so happy three others were overturned. And he feels the court’s reasoning isn’t clear.
“Because of their ambiguity in the decision, it’s entirely possible that Alabama could fly and do very, very well.”
Or he says, it may not. Alabama’s speaker of the house says the court left the “teeth” of the Arizona law in effect and that’s a victory.
The Southern Poverty Law Center is among the groups which challenged the Alabama bill. Legal director Mary Bauer says while it’s not a perfect ruling it’s a strong blow to anti-immigrant laws. She says the ruling – in general — makes clear a state cannot enact its own immigration policy.
“And I think that means that much of Alabama’s law is sort of dead in the water.”
In addition to Alabama — Indiana, Georgia, South Carolina and Utah have similar immigration laws with legal challenges on hold.
University of Alabama law professor Paul Horwitz says yesterday’s ruling on Arizona, does not make these other cases a forgone conclusion. Courts will weigh provisions not in Arizona’s law. Judges may find wiggle room in the ruling. What it does, he says, is offer guidance.
“The Supreme Court often acts as a kind of traffic signal and it’s steering the traffic in a particular direction now.”
So with these immigration laws in the middle of that process, further legal showdowns are expected– something both sides of the debate do agree on.
~ Andrew Yeager, June 26, 2012.
~ Web version by Em Wiginton
Sudanese paramilitary drone attack kills 50, including 33 children, doctor group says
Thursday's attack is the latest in the fighting between the paramilitary group, the Rapid Support Forces, also known as the RSF, and the Sudanese military, who have been at war for over two years.
Russia unleashes drone and missile attack on Ukraine as diplomatic talks continue
Russia unleashed a major missile and drone barrage on Ukraine overnight into Saturday, after U.S. and Ukrainian officials said they'll meet on Saturday for talks aimed at ending the war.
Takeaways from the latest special election and what it means for control of the House
There was yet another sign this week of a potential 2026 wave that could hand control of the House of Representatives to Democrats.
West Virginians question National Guard deployments after attack on 2 of their own
Army Specialist Sarah Beckstrom was fatally shot in Washington, D.C., while Air Force Staff Sergeant Andrew Wolfe was seriously wounded. Trump says the deployments are necessary to fight crime, but others disagree.
Trump official signals potential rollback of changes to census racial categories
Trump officials are reviewing changes to racial and ethnic categories that the Biden administration approved for the 2030 census and other federal government forms, a White House agency official says.
HHS changed the name of transgender health leader on her official portrait
Admiral Rachel Levine was the first transgender person to be confirmed by the Senate to serve in the federal government. Her official portrait at HHS headquarters has been altered.
