Court rejects Georgia's request to delay immigration law case

Opponents of Georgia and Arizona’s laws say they are unconstitutional and interfere with the federal government's authority to regulate immigration. Proponents deny those arguments, saying the states are trying to cooperate with federal officials in fighting illegal immigration.

At stake are provisions in Georgia's law that would authorize police to investigate the immigration status of certain suspects and punish people who transport or harbor illegal immigrants. Both provisions are patterned after Arizona's law.

A U.S. district judge in Atlanta put those Georgia provisions on hold in June amid a legal challenge brought by a coalition of civil and immigrant rights groups. Georgia has appealed that ruling to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. That court confirmed in November that it would hear legal arguments in the case.

A spokeswoman for Olens said she had no comment other than to say her office looks forward to the "oral argument and the future decision by the court."

In a prepared statement issued last week, Olens said waiting for a decision from the Supreme Court before going before the appeals court would "better utilize the resources of the state and the courts, while maintaining our zealous defense of the law."

Charles Kuck, a local immigration attorney who is part of the coalition of civil and immigrant rights groups fighting Georgia's law, said he was not surprised by the appeals court's decision.

"Many of the issues to be resolved by the circuit court are already relatively settled law," he said. "States simply are not supposed to be in the business of immigration regulation."