INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — Two lawyers who challenged Indiana's
immigration law said the U.S. Supreme Court's decision Monday to throw out
part of a similar law in Arizona reinforces a federal judge's decision to
block the Indiana statute.
else, it just reinforces the unconstitutionality of the Indiana law," said
Ken Falk, legal director of American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana.
U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker issued an order preventing part of
the 2011 Indiana law that gave local police power to arrest anyone who has
had certain actions filed against them by immigration authorities.
On Monday, the
U.S. Supreme Court struck down provisions of Arizona's law that required
all immigrants to obtain or carry immigration registration papers; made it
a state criminal offense for an illegal immigrant to seek work or hold a
job; and allowed police to arrest suspected illegal immigrants without
But the court
did not throw out the provision requiring police to check the immigration
status of someone they suspect is not in the United States legally. Even
there, though, the justices said the provision could be subject to
additional legal challenges.
Attorney General Greg Zoeller said he would review the court's decision
and advise lawmakers of any changes required in the statute.
Falk said the
Arizona law required police to suspect an immigrant had committed a crime
before making an arrest, while Indiana's law allowed police to arrest
people who hadn't committed a crime. He said the Indiana law was "a clear
violation of the Fourth Amendment."
of the Court's decision strongly supports the Indiana district court's
injunction of two provisions of Indiana's law," said Linton Joaquin,
general counsel with National Immigration Law Center, which helped the
ACLU represent the three immigrants who filed the lndiana lawsuit.
year threw out a provision of the Indiana law that would allow the arrest
of anyone who has had a notice of action filed by immigration authorities,
a formal paperwork step that affects virtually anyone applying to be in
the U.S. for any reason. The other portion of the law that was blocked
would have made it illegal for immigrants to use ID cards issued by
foreign consulates as proof of identification.
"As a whole,
the decision appears to reinforce the proposition that immigration is the
sole province of the federal government and states do not have a role,"
state government, which is fighting to have the temporary injunction
lifted claims that police could only arrest immigrants when they have
documents that show the federal government has ordered them to be removed
cultural group in East Chicago also challenged the state law in northern
Indiana federal court in December, but the judge there stayed the
proceedings pending the Supreme Court's decision in the Arizona case.