The last week of March, the Supreme Court heard arguments regarding the Affordable Care Act. While Americans await the Court’s decision about the ACA, the next contentious issue facing the justices is the fate of Arizona’s now infamous anti-immigration legislation, Arizona SB 1070.  The Immigration Policy Center released a Q and A publication with great information about the case.

On April 25, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments about whether or not SB 1070 is legal in light of conflicting federal laws. One of the central issues is whether states can make and enforce immigration laws – a role that has been held exclusively by the federal government. The main policy of SB 1070 is essentially a concept referred to as “attrition through enforcement” in which aggressive enforcement of immigration laws will make life so difficult for undocumented immigrants that they will “self deport”.

The argument from the justice department has been that SB 1070 does not match federal law and therefore cannot be enforced. Arizona SB 1070 gives Arizona law enforcement the authority to question anyone they have a “reasonable suspicion” is in the United States unlawfully – and enforce federal immigration laws. Arizona argues that police can enforce federal laws – even immigration laws – unless forbidden by Congress from doing so. On the other hand, the United States argues the opposite – that police officers can only enforce immigration laws with the specific permission of Congress as immigration enforcement has historically been a federal responsibility.

Copycat legislation mirroring SB 1070 has sprung up in other states, including Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina, and Utah.  In Wisconsin, Rep. Pridemore authored a bill in the summer of 2011, which has fortunately failed to move forward since.  The fate of these bills that became legislation, and those that have been stalled, will hinge on the decision by the Supreme Court.

More information about the parts of the Arizona law that are being challenged, a list of those who filed amicus briefs both supporting and opposing SB 1070, and an explanation of the possible repercussions of this case can be found in the guide noted above.   See also the op-ed column in the Journal Sentinel by Christine Neumann-Ortiz.                        By Julie Davidson