By REES LLOYD
Due to the extraordinary level of public interest in the case of USA vs. State of Arizona, Case No. 10-16645, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal has consented to live broadcast of Oral Argument on Monday, Nov. 1, 2010, at 9a.m. (PST). It will be broadcast nationwide on C-Span 1, and streamed to remote viewing locations at courthouses, including in Portland.
Opposing attorneys for the U.S. and the State of Arizona will argue before a three-judge panel the constitutionality of Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070, which authorizes local police to inquire into a person’s legal right to be present in Arizona, but only under certain strict conditions imposed on officers which are greater than the conditions placed on federal officers for such questioning. The proceeding will be broadcast from the U.S. Courthouse in San Francisco by C-Span 1. It will be video streamed to federal courts at the U.S. Pioneer Courthouse in Portland, OR; at the 9th Circuit Courthouse in Pasadena, CA; in Seattle, WA; Phoenix and Tucson in Arizona; New York; and Boston. It will also be streamed to certain law schools, but none in Oregon.
The Obama administration first publicly attacked Arizona for adopting SB 1070, and then, through Attorney General Eric Holder, filed suit against Arizona to enjoin enforcment of it. A U.S. District Court granted an injunction against certain portions of SB 1070, and allowed other provisions to be enforced. Arizona and Gov. Janice Brewer appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal.
In addition to the legal briefs filed by the Obama administration attacking SB 1070 as preempted by federal law which gives exclusive authority over immigration law enforcement to the federal government, and opposing briefs filed by Arizona and Governor Brewer defending SB 1070 as not only constitutional but absolutely necessary to protect Arizona citizens from illegal alien violence and crime due to the federal government’s failure to enforce immigration laws, the 9th Circuit has received more than two dozen amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs.
The amicus briefs have been filed on behalf of several States, many members of Congress, other office holders, many organizations, and even foreign governments. The Court has denied the requests of various amici to make oral argument, but has granted the U.S. and Arizona thirty minutes each to argue their positions, from which they may grant time to amicus parties for oral presentations.
Among the amicus curiae is the United Mexican States, which did not seek to intervene as a party to the lawsuit, but did apply for and receive consent to file a legal brief attacking Arizona. In it, Mexico argues that Arizona SB 1070 is an “intrusion in international affairs,” “impedes international relations and bilateral collaboration in cross-border issues;” and “will severely hinder Mexico-Arizona trade and tourism;” “derails efforts towards comprehensive immigration reform and collaborative border management;” [and] “obstructs international and border collaboration to combat drug issues.”
Mexico further argues that SB1070 “poses a risk of harassment by law enforcement to Mexican citizens;” and “dangerously leads to a patchwork of laws that impede effective and consistent diplomatic relations.”
Appearing in support of Mexico and joining its brief as amicus curiae are: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Paraguay and Peru. It has been noted that all, or almost all of them receive foreign aid or foreign loans granted by the Obama administration, and paid by the taxpayers of the United States, including the taxpayers of Arizona. Those Latin countires now file briefs in support of the Obama administration in attacking Arizona.
This has caused questions to be raised as to the propriety of a United States Court making constitutional determinations in whole or in part on the interests, wants, and views of a non-party to the litigation, Mexico, a corrupt and failed state whose greatest export is its own citizens who illegally enter the U.S. in violation of law, and the Latin American countries which seek and receive aid or loans from the Obama administration and have joined Mexico in attacking the State of Arizona.
It has been noted that Mexico, which attacks and complains against the right of an American state to defend its citizens against violent and criminal acts by illegal aliens from Mexico, is itself building a wall on its southern border to keep out illegal aliens from those other Latin American countries which now join Mexico in attacking an American State.
It has been further noted that 72 citizens of some of those Latin American countries joining Mexico were recently raped and then murdered in the Mexican State of Chiapas, , after illegally entering Mexico from their countries.
In addition, it has been noted that Mexico, while attacking Arizona, is the major source of illegal narcotics as well as illegal aliens entering the U.S., and is near collapse as a state due to out-of-control drug crime which has resulted in approximately 30,000 killings of Mexicans by Mexican drug gangsters in the last four years. Most recently, Mexican drug thugs brazenly attacked a small city’s police station with over a thousand rounds of gun fire, and hand grenades, resulting in the entire police force resigning. Civil authority in the city has collapsed. This is manifestly evidence of a failing if not failed state.
Thus, aside from the question of Mexico having any legal standing to complain against Arizona’s laws and policies protecting its citizens from illegal aliens from Mexico, including the Mexican drug thugs terrorizing Mexico, and thereby to have Mexico’s views, wants, and interests shape American constitutional jurisprudence, there is the question of Mexico’s moral standing to attack Arizona and thus American citizens in light of Mexico’s own inability to control crime within its own borders, the export of its own citizens to the U.S. illegally by which Mexico profits by remittances from illegal aliens, and Mexico’s own morally repugnant and brutal immigration policies and actions pertaining to aliens who illegally enter Mexico.
The briefs of the USA and the State of Arizona, and of amicus curiae, including Mexico, are available on the website of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal.
It is unknown at this time whether the Obama administration and Attorney General Holder have decided to give some of its oral argument time to Mexico to attack Arizona on oral argument in the 9th Circuit.
[Rees Lloyd is a longtime civil rights attorney who writes for the Victoria Taft blog and is a frequent commentator on the Victoria Taft Show.]
Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com
