PHOENIX — A federal judge, ruling on a clash between the federal government and a state over immigration policy, has blocked the most controversial parts of Arizona’s immigration enforcement law from going into effect.
In a ruling on a law that has rocked politics coast to coast and thrown a spotlight on the border state’s fierce debate over immigration, United States District Court Judge Susan Bolton in Phoenix said some aspects of the law can go into effect as scheduled on Thursday.
The parts of the law that the judge blocked included the sections that called for officers to check a person’s immigration status while enforcing other laws and that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times. Judge Bolton put those sections on hold until the issues are resolved by the courts.
The judge’s decision, which came as demonstrators opposed and supporting the law gathered here and after three hearings in the past two weeks in which she peppered lawyers on both sides with skeptical questions, seemed unlikely to quell the debate.
The ruling came four days before 1,200 National Guard troops are to report to the Southwest border to assist federal and local law enforcement agencies there, part of the Obama administration’s response to growing anxiety over the border and immigration that has fed support for the law.
Lawyers for Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican who signed the law and is campaigning on it for election, were expected to appeal, and legal experts predict the case is bound for the United States Supreme Court.
The law, adopted in April, was aimed at discouraging illegal immigrants from entering or remaining in the state.
It coincided with economic anxiety and followed a number of high-profile crimes attributed to illegal immigrants and smuggling, though federal data suggests crime is falling in Arizona, as it is nationally, despite a surge of immigration.
Seven lawsuits have been filed against the law, challenging its constitutionality and alleging it will lead to racial profiling.
The Justice Department lawsuit was among the more high profile, filed after President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder condemned the law.
It also lead to mass demonstrations in Phoenix, for and against it, and a national campaign by civil rights groups to boycott the state.
The Mexican government warned its citizens about traveling to the state and filed a brief in court supporting the lawsuits. Its human rights commission was sending inspectors to the border in anticipation of an escalation in deportations.
But the law also has attracted support, with polls showing a majority of Americans support the notion of local police assisting in federal immigration enforcement.
The Obama administration struggled to respond. After the law was adopted it defended its handling of the border and immigration while urging Congress to enact a sweeping change in immigration law.
Judge Bolton conducted three hearings on the lawsuits.
Justice Department lawyers argued the state law amounted to regulation of immigration, the exclusive authority of the federal government. They said the law goes too far in requiring local police to make immigration checks and that federal agencies would be overwhelmed in responding to the requests.
In addition, they argued that the law could lead to harassment of legal residents and citizens who fell under suspicion by the police and could damage relations with Mexico and other countries the United States relies on for cooperation with law enforcement and other matters.
Judge Bolton at times did not sound open to the federal government’s arguments.
“Why can’t Arizona be as inhospitable as they wish to people who have entered or remained in the United States?” she asked Deputy Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler last week.
“It is not for one of our states to be inhospitable in the way this statute does,” he replied, echoing arguments from other lawyers who have warned against a patchwork of state and local immigration laws.
At another point, she asked, “Where is the preemption if everybody who is arrested for some crime has their immigration status checked?”
She suggested the immigration agency could simply refuse to pick up someone referred by the police, a tact federal officials have hinted could be their response if the law goes forward. But she seemed reluctant to accept that local police making the inquiry intruded on federal authority.
John Bouma, a lawyer for the state, said the law closely hews to federal statutes and follows the intent of Congress to give states a role in enforcing immigration laws.
He said Arizona was being irreparably harmed by the flow of immigration across the border – more people are apprehended crossing the border in Arizona than any other state – and the state should not be penalized for stepping in where the federal government has not.
“The status quo is simply unacceptable,” he said.
But Judge Bolton seemed flustered by vague wording in the law and questioned, among other things, if people arrested for any crime would be detained for unusually long periods while their immigration status was being determined, as the law requires.
She also questioned whether local police could arrest somebody without a warrant if they believe they have commited a deportable offense. Determining who gets deported is typically left to a judge.
