SANTA CLARA COUNTY,
CALIF. – Joined by the United States Conference of Mayors, the
National League of Cities, and major cities and counties from across the nation,
the County of Santa Clara, California filed an amicus curiae brief today
with the United States Supreme Court urging the Court to strike down the most
controversial provisions of the State of Arizona’s anti-immigrant law, SB
1070.
The brief was filed in Arizona v. United States in support
of the federal government, which brought the lawsuit to stop Arizona from
implementing the law because it conflicts with the federal government’s
exclusive authority over immigration matters. The Supreme Court will be
reviewing a decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, issued in April of
2011, which held that four provisions of the Arizona law are unconstitutional.
The Ninth Circuit ruling also prohibited Arizona from implementing those four
provisions. The provisions of SB 1070 that are at issue in the case require
state and local law enforcement officers in Arizona to question individuals’
immigration status, ask for immigration documents, and detain suspected
undocumented immigrants.
“Arizona’s law is a direct assault on people’s
civil rights, and allowing it to go into effect would increase fear of the
police in immigrant communities nationwide,” said Santa Clara County Board of
Supervisors President George Shirakawa. “Public safety depends on all residents
knowing they can call local officers for help when they need it. We’ve worked
hard in our communities to ensure that local police and sheriffs are not seen as
part of the federal immigration enforcement system. Arizona’s law forces local
police and sheriffs to pursue potential civil immigration violations at the
expense of their number one priority - protecting the safety of our
communities.”
Santa Clara County’s amicus brief is joined by 41 cities
and counties, including several major cities within Arizona. Also joining the
brief are the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the official organization of U.S.
cities with populations of 30,000 or more, of which there are approximately
1,200, and the National League of Cities, the country’s largest and oldest
organization serving municipal government, representing more than 19,000 United
States cities and towns.
In their brief, the cities and counties argue
that the provisions of the law under consideration are unconstitutional,
impractical, costly, and deeply damaging to the relationships law enforcement
agencies have built with immigrant communities and the public at large that
allow them to protect public safety.
“The enjoined provisions of SB 1070
wrongly suggest to the public that the enforcement of federal civil immigration
law is the responsibility of local officials, and that basic constitutional
principles do not apply when those officials are enforcing these laws,” the
local governments argue in their brief. “If laws such as SB 1070 are allowed to
take effect, immigrants—whether they are naturalized citizens, lawful permanent
residents, visa holders, or undocumented individuals—will become deeply
distrustful of local governments and law enforcement officials.”
The
cities and counties filing the brief provide essential services to local
residents, including maintaining safe communities through the funding,
operation, and oversight of local law enforcement agencies. They argue that
Arizona’s law “imposes vague and unworkable requirements” on local law
enforcement officers, and that it essentially requires officers to engage in
racial profiling and other unconstitutional conduct, which will subject local
governments to significant potential liability and have long-term negative
effects on the ability of local governments to protect the safety of their
communities.
Santa Clara County, along with many of the other local
governments, filed similar briefs in front of the federal judge who issued the
original injunction in the case, and with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
when it considered Arizona’s appeal of the injunction. As Santa Clara County
Counsel Miguel Márquez explained, local governments across the country were
relieved when the injunction was issued, but must continue to speak out about
their concerns regarding laws like SB 1070.
“By filing a brief as a
friend of the court, we offer an important perspective on how local governments
both inside and outside of Arizona are harmed by a law like SB 1070, which
breeds fear and mistrust of government in communities across the country,” said
Márquez. “The Arizona legislature’s decision to make up its own immigration laws
because it doesn’t like the federal government’s approach is inconsistent with
the U.S. Constitution. The lower courts’ decisions protect the ability of the
federal government to enforce federal law, allowing local governments focus on
protecting public safety.”
Lawyers for Arizona and the federal government
will argue the case in front the Supreme Court on April 25th.
Copies of the
brief are available upon request.
Amicus
Brief
Media Contact: Gwendolyn Mitchell/Laurel Anderson, Office of
Public Affairs, (408) 299-5119; Miguel Márquez, County Counsel (408)
299-5902.
Posted: March 23,
2012