Federal Court Enjoins Enforcement of Bulk of Controversial Arizona Immigration Law

A federal district court has enjoined enforcement of all of the major portions of a controversial Arizona immigration law, including a provision that authorized police officers to check the immigrant status of individuals suspected of criminal activity. The ruling will not surprise most immigration and constitutional law experts. Supreme Court doctrine gives the federal government wide authority over immigration issues. Conflicting state law is preempted by the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

The court ruling, however, only grants a preliminary injunction. This kind of injunction will bar enforcement of portions of the law until the court issues a final ruling on its validity. The issuance of a preliminary injunction, however, means that the government has proven that there is a "likelihood" that it will prevail on the merits of its argument that federal law preempts the Arizona statute.

Mexico Files an Amicus Brief Urging Court to Find AZ Immigration Law Unconstitutional

Mexico has filed an amicus brief urging a federal court to invalidate SB1070, a controversial Arizona immigration law. The New York law firm Dewey & LeBoeuf filed the brief on behalf of Mexico. Mexico says that it seeks to protect the interest of its citizens who travel abroad and to prevent an erosion in US-Mexico relations. It its within the discretion of the judge whether or not to consider papers filed by nonparties.

This fairly routine development (filing an amicus brief) has become much more dramatic due to several misleading articles (like this one on Fox News), which state that Mexico has "joined" the litigation challenging the law or that Mexico has filed "a suit" against Arizona. These reports are misleading and untrue. An amicus brief is not a lawsuit. A party filing an amicus brief does not "join" the lawsuit.