Federal judge blocks Utah immigration law

SALT LAKE CITY Tue May 10, 2011 10:15pm EDT

Related Topics

SALT LAKE CITY (Reuters) - A federal judge on Tuesday temporarily blocked a controversial Utah immigration law that required police to check the immigration status of those they detain for serious crimes.

The ruling by District Judge Clark Waddoups came on the same day the state law passed earlier this year went into effect.

The bill required police to demand evidence of citizenship or immigration status from those they arrest for felonies or serious misdemeanors.

The American Civil Liberties Union was a plaintiff in the suit, which was also brought by the ACLU of Utah and the National Immigration Law Center, among other groups.

"We are relieved that the Court agreed to delay implementation of this harmful law," Linton Joaquin, general counsel, National Immigration Law Center, said in a statement.

"We look forward to fighting to ensure that this unconstitutional law, which would subject people, particularly people of color, to unlawful interrogation and detention, and create a climate of fear in immigrant communities, will be removed entirely from the books."

Utah's Republican Governor Gary Herbert said in a statement that the state's attorney general and legislature worked to craft a bill that would withstand constitutional scrutiny.

"Utah will have ample opportunity in court to demonstrate this bill is on solid footing. Until then, we will adhere to the court's temporary restraining order," Herbert said.

Waddoups set a July 14 hearing to hear further arguments from both sides about the law.

The bill allowing local police to crack down on illegal immigrants was one of a package of laws Herbert signed earlier this year, which also includes provisions to create a guest worker program and employer verification.

It was milder than a similar measure signed by Arizona's Republican Governor Jan Brewer last year that required state and local police to determine the immigration status of people they detained and suspected were in the country illegally.

Key parts of that law were blocked by a federal judge shortly before it came into effect in July 2010 last year, arguing that immigration matters are the federal government's responsibility.

The ruling was upheld last month by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Governor Brewer this week said she would file a petition with the Supreme Court to lift the injunction blocking parts of the law.

(Reporting by Bob Bernick and Alex Dobuzinskis; Writing by Tim Gaynor; Editing by Jerry Norton)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (4)
oldhiggy wrote:
I don’t understand. The federal judge says law enforcement can’t check to see if additional laws have been broken?? Isn’t being here with out proper documentation against the laws of the land? Will some one please explain the difference between proving your immigration status and proving your identity. If people don’t have to prove thy are here legally why do I need to prove who I am to vote

May 10, 2011 9:36pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
robobbob wrote:
Go Utah. The federal government is failing on one of its few constitutional mandates and yeilding to globalist dreams.
now, if you can stomach the loss of federal funding. go ahead and enforce the law and see how the feds try to up the ante.

May 10, 2011 9:46pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
dstnwst wrote:
This makes no sense to me at all. The person, according to the law, is being questioned and/or detained for a “felony or serious misdemeanor”. The world situation today practically mandates inquiries or background checks to determine the citizenship of the person, regardless of the color of their skin. I would put it right up there on the “national security” shelf. The person is already suspected of commiting a crime, its not that much of a stretch of the imagination to think that, just mayby, they have broken other laws. I agree with oldhiggy. It is the duty of law enforcement to determine just who, and what, they are dealing with.

May 10, 2011 10:24pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.