Appeals court to hear immigration law arguments next year
A federal appeals court in Atlanta has scheduled oral arguments involving Georgia and Alabama’s stringent new immigration laws for next year, likely leaving key parts of those measures on hold for several more months.
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals will hear legal arguments in those cases some time between Feb. 28 and March 2, according to a court notice issued this week.
Georgia is appealing a lower court’s ruling to put parts of Georgia’s law on hold amid a court challenge brought by a coalition of civil and immigrant rights groups. That coalition argues parts of the law are unconstitutional and interfere with the federal government’s authority to regulate immigration.
Federal District Court Judge Thomas Thrash temporarily put on hold a part of Georgia’s law that authorizes police to investigate the immigration status of certain suspects. He also halted a provision that punishes people who knowingly transport or harbor illegal immigrants.
Gov. Nathan Deal signed House Bill 87 into law in May, hailing it as a victory for taxpayers who have borne the cost of illegal immigration in Georgia.
A recent estimate by the Pew Hispanic Center puts the number of illegal immigrants in Georgia at 425,000, the seventh highest among the states. Those illegal immigrants, supporters of HB 87 say, are taking jobs from state residents and straining Georgia's public schools, hospitals and jails.
Critics of the new law say it is divisive and argue illegal immigrants generally stay out of trouble and contribute to the economy through their work and spending.
Last month, the appeals court approved the U.S. Justice Department's request to temporarily put parts of Alabama’s law on hold pending the outcome of an appeal. Among the provisions that were halted is one that would require public school officials in Alabama to determine the immigration status of their students.
The court, however, refused to halt a provision that would require police in Alabama to do immigration status checks under certain circumstances. The court did not detail how it came to this decision. But it cited several requirements that petitioners must meet before the court will order injunctions, including showing substantial likelihood they will win on the merits of their appeal.
Proponents of Georgia's law said the court's ruling in Alabama’s case boosts their efforts to empower police to do immigration status checks. Opponents of these measures say people shouldn't read too much into the court's decision from last month, given that it is not final.
About the Author
Jeremy Redmon is an award-winning journalist, essayist and educator with more than three decades of experience reporting for newspapers. He has written for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution since 2005.
