The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to revive an aggressive Florida immigration law that had been blocked by lower courts. The law would let state officials prosecute unauthorized migrants who enter the state.
The court’s one-sentence order gave no reasons, which is typical when the justices act on emergency applications. There were no noted dissents.
The law, adopted by Florida lawmakers this year, created two new crimes. The first, entering the state after eluding federal authorities, called for a mandatory nine-month misdemeanor sentence for a first offense and escalating felony sentences for later ones.
The second crime, re-entering the state after having been deported, is a felony. The law requires people arrested on suspicion of violating either provision to be jailed without bond while their cases proceed.
Two migrants and immigrations rights groups quickly challenged the law, saying it interfered with the federal government’s power to set immigration policy and to conduct foreign affairs.
Judge Kathleen M. Williams, of the Federal District Court in Miami, temporarily blocked enforcement of the law.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit refused to pause Judge Williams’s ruling, saying it was likely that federal immigration laws pre-empted the state law. The panel put the appeal on a fast track, and the Trump administration filed a brief supporting the state.
At least six other states have similar laws, all enacted in the past two years, as Republican lawmakers have sought to harness the energy President Trump has brought to the immigration issue and to stiffen penalties for undocumented migrants. Every court that has considered the laws has ruled against them, according to a Supreme Court brief filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, which represents the challengers.
Those courts relied on Arizona v. United States, a 2012 decision in which the Supreme Court endorsed broad federal power over immigration by a 5-to-3 vote.
“Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration” while the federal government tries to address them, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority, “but the state may not pursue policies that undermine federal law.”
The court’s composition has changed since then, and officials in Florida had been hopeful that the current justices would alter the balance of power between the federal government and the states in the realm of immigration.
In Florida’s emergency application, James Uthmeier, the state’s attorney general, said there was no conflict between federal law and the relevant parts of the state statute.
“Florida carefully crafted both provisions to precisely track, mimic and depend upon federal immigration law,” he wrote, adding that a contrary view “strikes at the heart of states’ ability to protect their citizens from the devastating effects of illegal immigration.”
On July 3, after that brief was filed, a divided three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit ruled against a similar Texas law. “For nearly 150 years, the Supreme Court has recognized that the power to control immigration — the entry, admission and removal of aliens — is exclusively a federal power,” Judge Priscilla Richman, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, wrote for the majority.
Florida officials have been aggressive in trying to enforce the new law, despite Judge Williams’s ruling. In an April letter to state law enforcement agencies, Mr. Uthmeier wrote that it was his view that “no lawful, legitimate order currently impedes your agencies from continuing to enforce Florida’s new illegal entry and re-entry laws.”
Last month, Judge Williams, who was appointed by President Barack Obama, held Mr. Uthmeier in civil contempt for the letter, which she found defied her April ruling. “Litigants cannot change the plain meaning of words as it suits them, especially when conveying a court’s clear and unambiguous order,” Judge Williams wrote. “Fidelity to the rule of law can have no other meaning.”
Responding on social media, Mr. Uthmeier wrote that “if being held in contempt is what it costs to defend the rule of law and stand firmly behind President Trump’s agenda on illegal immigration, so be it.”
The contempt finding was not directly before the justices, but Florida’s seeming defiance of Judge Williams’s ruling may have colored their view of the state’s emergency application.
Adam Liptak covers the Supreme Court and writes Sidebar, a column on legal developments. A graduate of Yale Law School, he practiced law for 14 years before joining The Times in 2002.
The post Supreme Court Won’t Revive Aggressive Florida Immigration Law appeared first on New York Times.
