Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, but specifically the Arizona federal district court and the 9th Circuit, have done everything possible to preclude enforcement of immigration laws in Arizona. In addition, federal courts have taken over the state legislative and executive offices to manage immigration in the state. The State legislature has been overruled and sweeping federal court injunctions control the executive.
The latest case, Melendres v. Arpaio illustrates the inability of Arizona to enforce border control judicially, and the federal Department of Justice also insists on preemptive authority to enforce immigration law, a decision easily waived or delegated, to foreclose the state of Arizona enforcing the law. Injunctions in civil cases ordinarily order one party to discontinue certain acts or conditions of another party, and the detriment to that party is substantial. But in the context of immigration, public agencies must submit to the policy decisions of a single judge. Here is an example of an injunction issued by a district court judge recited in the 9th Circuit opinion:
“[As a result of the evidence”], the district court permanently enjoined Defendants from “(1) detaining, holding or arresting Latino occupants of vehicles in Maricopa County based on a reasonable belief, without more, that such persons are in the country without authorization; (2) using race or Latino ancestry as a factor in deciding whether to stop any vehicle with a Latino occupant, or in deciding whether a vehicle occupant was in the United States without authorization; (3) detaining Latino occupants of vehicles stopped for traffic violations for a period longer than reasonably necessary to resolve the traffic violation in the absence of reasonable suspicion that any of them have committed or are committing a violation of federal or state criminal law; (4) detaining, holding or arresting Latino occupants of a vehicle … for violations of the Arizona Human Smuggling Act without a reasonable basis for believing that, under all the circumstances, the necessary elements of the crime are present; and (5) detaining, arresting or holding persons based on a reasonable suspicion that they are conspiring with their employer to violate the Arizona Employer Sanctions Act.”
In addition the judge ordered the Sheriff’s Office to begin officer training in the Fourth Amendment, training in racial profiling (how do you do that?), and appointment of a Monitor with extensive authority to evaluate all programs. At state expense.
That a federal court could run a sheriff’s office is an incredible display of judicially unauthorized conduct. But this is not the first arrogant act. The federal district court, with the agreement of the 9th Circuit, managed the Nogales School District for 30 years to make sure English was taught to Spanish speaking children illegally in this country. Even the Supreme Court could not approve that-and did not.
The 9th Circuit is also running California prisons, ordering prisoners released for no reason other than because the prisons are crowded. And recently the 9th Circuit ordered a class action of 33,000 inmates who alleged deficient medical services in Nevada prisons despite the fact not all the prisoners needed medical service. Parsons v. Ryan, above This is not the first case the 9th Circuit has invoked solicitude for rapists, burglars, murderers, robbers and thieves.
N.B. Judge Lawrence Waddington has published his book on the 9th Circuit entitled “Disorder in the Court.” Amazon.com
