Precedent suggests the Obama administration has the upper hand in the AZ suit.

[Clio the Leo]

U.S. Hits Immigration Law

<snip>

The suit, filed in Phoenix, said that the state had "crossed a constitutional line" that interferes with the federal authority over immigration. It alleges that the state law would burden federal agencies, diverting resources from such higher priorities as tracking illegal immigrants implicated in terrorism cases, drug smuggling or other crimes.

"Setting immigration policy and enforcing immigration laws is a national responsibility," Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement. "Seeking to address the issue through a patchwork of state laws will only create more problems than it solves."

Precedent suggests the Obama administration has the upper hand in the suit. Federal courts, dating back to laws in the 1880s aimed at limiting Chinese immigration, have given the federal government wide latitude to regulate such matters. But in recent decades, courts have also allowed state laws that rely on federal law, such as those denying state benefits to illegal immigrants.

More broadly, federal courts have sided with the federal government in cases of states and cities passing laws that conflict with federal law.

"I think the federal government is going to win and the Arizona law is going to be shown to be unconstitutional," said Karl M. Manheim, professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. "States don't have any power to regulate immigration."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704862404575350960347667250.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_US_News_3

[treestar]

1. The Constitution is completely clear in giving that power to the federal government

There were not supposed to be 50 different laws on the subject.

[NoNothing]

2. Here's the wrinkle, though:

The Arizona law was pretty carefully written to mirror the federal law. The Arizona law itself doesn't substantively change existing statutory immigration policy, it mostly deals instead with state law enforcement procedures for detecting and turning illegal immigrants over to the responsible federal agencies. So it will be very difficult to make a case that the laws themselves contradict each other. Instead, the government is arguing that the federal executive branch enforcement policies take precedence over the written statutes. Basically they are saying that if the executive agency decides not to enforce the law, then the state can't enforce the law either, *even if the laws themselves do not contradict each other.* But to my knowledge this claim has not been tested before.

[pinto]

3. Kick.

This will be interesting. Thanks for the post.