The U.S. Supreme Court's decision Monday to sustain the centerpiece of Arizona's sweeping illegal immigration law could pave the way for Georgia to start enforcing a similar statute, though under tight restrictions, legal experts said.
At issue is a part of Georgia's statute — signed into law last year — that would authorize police to investigate the immigration status of certain suspects and detain those who are determined to be in the country illegally. That provision — which critics call the "show-me-your-papers law" — is tied up in a federal appeals court in Atlanta amid a legal challenge.
In its ruling Monday, the Supreme Court rejected the Obama administration's argument that a similar Arizona statute is pre-empted by federal law. The court said communication between state and federal officials is an "important feature" of the immigration system and that Congress has encouraged authorities to share information in this area.
At the same time, the court worried how the law could be applied, saying detaining people "solely to verify their immigration status would raise constitutional concerns." The court added its decision does not stop other legal challenges that could be filed against the law.
Now that the Supreme Court has ruled, it's up to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to decide whether Georgia can start enforcing its own law. The appeals court is considering a lawsuit brought against the statute by the American Civil Liberties Union and other civil and immigrant rights groups.
The court announced in March that it would wait until after the higher court rules on Arizona's law before it acts on Georgia's statute. Monday, the appeals court asked the parties in the case to file briefs addressing the effects of the Supreme Court's ruling by July 6, meaning the fate of Georgia's law probably won't be known until some time next month at the soonest.
Gov. Nathan Deal signed Georgia's statute into law in May of last year, hailing it as a victory for taxpayers who have borne the cost of illegal immigration in Georgia. He expressed cautious optimism about the Supreme Court's ruling Monday.
"It appears the court has upheld the major thrust of our state's statute: that states have the right to assist in enforcing federal immigration law," he said.
Stephen Yale-Loehr, a New York-based immigration attorney who teaches immigration law at Cornell Law School, said Georgia's law "will have to be interpreted narrowly to pass constitutional muster." But he predicted the appeals court will let it stand, at least for now.
"The Supreme Court's opinion about the Arizona law is a guide to how to apply the similar Georgia provision without it being invalidated," he said.
The author of Georgia's law — Republican state Rep. Matt Ramsey of Peachtree City — said his statute was drafted to withstand legal scrutiny.
"By upholding an Arizona provision that is similar to a provision in Georgia's law ..." he said, "the Supreme Court has confirmed that states can implement this common-sense and important public safety measure."
Critics of the law noted the court invalidated three other sections of Arizona's law. They include provisions that would permit police to make warrantless arrests when people commit deportable offenses; punish people who fail to carry official immigration papers; and punish illegal immigrants who apply for work in Arizona.
The Obama administration sued to block those provisions, saying they could interfere with the nation's international diplomacy and the federal government's authority to set immigration policy.
"To call this a victory for Arizona or for laws that are similar to [its law] would just be inaccurate," said Karen Tumlin, a managing attorney for the National Immigration Law Center.
Meanwhile, the court's decision to strike down those three parts of Arizona's law bolsters legal arguments against another provision in Georgia's measure that would severely punish people who knowingly transport or harbor illegal immigrants in Georgia while committing another crime, said Omar Jadwat, senior staff counsel for the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project. That provision is also pending before the federal appeals court in Atlanta.
"The decision certainly looks like it strengthens our hand," Jadwat said.
Reactions to Monday's court ruling were mixed across the Atlanta area.
"I'm glad they upheld that specific part of the law," said Jackie Crowe, a retired teacher from Stockbridge. "We are a nation of laws, and these are steps to have a more lawful society."
Carla Roberts, who works at a woman's clothing store at Plaza Fiesta on Buford Highway, a popular shopping area for immigrants, said police should focus on other priorities.
"These laws do not make any sense," she said. "I don't blame immigrants for being here. They came to this country looking for opportunities and there are enough for everyone. I don't think they are taking our jobs."
Staff writers Nicole Chavez and Daniel Malloy contributed to this article.
Sustained
The U.S. Supreme Court let stand a provision in Arizona's immigration enforcement law that requires police to determine the immigration status of suspects when practicable and when they have a "reasonable suspicion" that the person is in the country illegally.
Invalidated
The court invalidated provisions that would permit police to make warrantless arrests when people commit deportable offenses; punish people who fail to carry official immigration papers; and punish illegal immigrants who apply for work in Arizona.
What it means for Georgia
Georgia enacted a similar law last year. Among other things, House Bill 87 would authorize state and local police to investigate the immigration status of suspects they believe have committed state or federal crimes and who cannot produce identification, such as a driver's license, or provide other information that could help police identify them. Like Arizona's law, that provision also would empower police to detain people who are determined to be in the country illegally and take them to jail.
People who knowingly transport or harbor illegal immigrants while committing another crime could face punishment.
Parts of Georgia's law are on hold in federal appeals court amid a legal challenge brought by a coalition of civil and immigrant rights groups. The state is appealing. Legal experts said Monday's U.S. Supreme Court decision could pave the way for Georgia to start enforcing A key part of its law, though under significant restrictions laid out by the court. Some also say the ruling could pose a threat to the part of Georgia's law dealing with transporting or harboring illegal immigrants.
About the Author
