Inside Arizona Politics: 2 more immigration suits hit court this week

Two of the seven lawsuits aimed at blocking Arizona's immigration law are scheduled for opening arguments Thursday, including the federal government's suit against the state.

Each of the lawsuits lays out multiple legal arguments against the law, which requires police to check the immigration status of people who present reasonable suspicion that they are in the country illegally.

Most of the arguments are based on fears that S1070 will lead to racial profiling and blur the lines between state and federal authority, although arguments have been raised that it will stifle interstate commerce and restrict the right to travel freely across state lines.

The federal government's lawsuit, United States v. State of Arizona, alleges that the law violates the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause, federal preemption and the Commerce Clause. It states that S1070 represents an "impermissible attempt" by the state to establish its own immigration policy.

Specifically, the lawsuit argues that sections one through six of S1070, such as the requirement that police check people’s legal status, the right of Arizonans to sue the state for non-enforcement, the misdemeanor charge illegal immigrants would face for not carrying federal documents and several other provisions conflict with both federal law and foreign policy.

The other lawsuit scheduled to reach federal court this week, Friendly House v. Whiting, alleges that S1070 violates the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection by subjecting Latinos to racial discrimination, the Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable search and seizure, the right to due process and the First Amendment rights to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and right to petition.

The Friendly House lawsuit was spearheaded by the American Civil Liberties Union and Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund, but it includes numerous other plaintiffs, such as the Service Employees International Union, Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce and Southside Presbyterian Church.

Both hearings will be in the courtroom of U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton, who has been assigned to all of the lawsuits against S1070. Bolton heard the first oral arguments against S1070 last week in a case filed on behalf of Phoenix police officer David Salgado. That suit, Salgado v. Brewer, will continue to move forward concurrently with the other lawsuits, and it's likely no final decisions will be made in the case until the other suits have had their day in court.

The plaintiffs in all of the lawsuits ultimately are trying to overturn the law, but they also are seeking an injunction to keep the law from taking effect on July 29. If Bolton puts a temporary hold on the law, S1070 cannot be enforced until the cases have been decided.

It may take weeks for Bolton to hear oral arguments in the remaining four cases, and it's possible many of them will be consolidated into a single suit at some point. Either way, definitive answers on the law’s constitutionality – or unconstitutionality – will be elusive for quite some time. An injunction, however, could come much sooner.