U.S. Supreme Court defers decision whether to hear Alabama immigration case

The court held a regularly scheduled conferenceFriday where the justices met behind closed doors to consider what cases to hear in the next term which begins in October. The Alabama vs. U.S. case, in which Alabama is appealing a lower court ruling blocking the harboring provision in its immigration law was on the conference agenda. This morning the court announced it had  agreed to hear one new case and denied petitions in numerous others, but Alabama`s case wasn`t on the list. 

The court has another conference set for Friday and the Alabama case has now been placed on the list for consideration, according to a Supreme Court listing.  The decision whether or not to hear the Alabama case could come April 29 or later, Alabama Solicitor General John Neiman said this morning. 

The court agrees to hear only a small number of cases each year among thousands of petitions. Attorneys for Alabama have previously said they selected the dispute over “harboring” in the state law because they believed it was both a strong argument and several other states had similar laws, so the court might be inclined to resolve an increasingly broad question. 

Last year the Supreme Court blocked much of Arizona`s immigration law, ruling the federal government had the chief role in setting immigration law. But the court also ruled states could play a role in enforcing immigration laws. It let stand an Arizona measure — also adopted in Alabama — that directs police to conduct immigration status checks during traffic stops and other routine law enforcement contact. 

Alabama asked the high court to consider the constitutionality of the state’s ban on harboring people who had entered the U.S. illegally. The law also barred transporting and inducing, or encouraging, those who entered the U.S. illegally to stay in Alabama.

The so-called harboring provision was among a number of portions of Alabama’s immigration law, passed in 2011, that were blocked by a federal district court in Birmingham or the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The harboring provision was criticized by three of Alabama`s largest churches. Leaders from the Episcopal, Roman Catholic and United Methodist churches sued to block it, arguing the measure criminalized basic aspects of their ministry including transporting, sheltering, feeding and clothing the poor.

A U.S. Court in Birmingham blocked the measure on technical grounds, finding that it conflicted with federal law.

Alabama has argued the state law complements federal law and that Congress has allowed business owners to sue other companies that flout immigration law.

The U.S. Department of Justice sued Alabama in 2011 to block its immigration law from going into effect. The DOJ had opposed the Supreme Court’s granting Alabama’s request to hear the harboring case.

The DOJ argued federal immigration law preempted state law in most cases and that Congress had already addressed the conduct covered in the Alabama law.

Alabama told the high court that nine other states were urging it to take up the issue. Neiman said the states that also filed briefs in support of Alabama`s petition to the court were Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Oklahoma and South Carolina.

Ir a la nota fuente