Supreme pizza legal work . . .(and Week in Preview Haiku)

Week in Preview Haiku:
                                         Arizona law
                                         (2)(b) or not (2)(b) hmm,
                                         Health Care Act Thursday

The decision by the U. S. Supreme Court in Arizona v. U. S. was released today.  I invite you to click on the link  and read the opinion of the court, if you wish.

Here's how it came out.  It was all struck down except one provision.

To put it simply, which is a real favor to those of you who are not still riveted to the opinion link, the Supremes said what was obvious from the beginning of this litigation.  Immigration issues are the jurisdiction of the Federal, not the the State governments.  State governments cannot dabble in anything immigration "pre-empted" by the Federal government.

The news reports are not really correct in what they are saying about the provision that remains.  Section (2)(b) requires that Arizona law enforcement officers check the legal status of persons otherwise legally stopped or detained if he or she has reason to believe the person might be illegal.  Provision (2)(b) was allowed to stand only because it's application has not been addressed by the State of Arizona Court system.  The Supreme Court said that it believes there is a way that  provision (2)(b) could be applied in a limited way to pass constitutional muster, and there are ways that it could be applied which would require that it to be reviewed again and possibly struck down.

And it is limited.  A law enforcement officer can ask for documentation of someone he or she has legally stopped otherwise and has reason to believe the detainee is an undocumented immigrant.  The detainee cannot be detained simply for the purpose of checking legal status.  That's pretty much it.

I learned something I was supposed to know but didn't.

It is not criminal to remain in the country illegally.  It is a civil offense.

Because that is true, most of Alabama's immigration law looks dead in the water, since it creates crimes based on legal status and otherwise interferes in the federal sphere of immigration regulation.   We'll see if the 11th Circuit agrees.

The Supreme Court also entered a decision in Miller v. Alabama.   The court prohibited mandatory sentences of life without parole for offenders of juvenile age.  Period.

Hallelujah.  Seriously.  Thank you Bryan Stevenson, Equal Justice Initiative, Montgomery, Alabama, who argued the case to the U. S. Supreme Court.  And won.

Alabama law, courts and government will be directly affected by these decisions, both of which are contrary to our State government's position.

Is there anything to be learned here? How can we reduce Alabama's increased playing time at the Supreme Court?

.Quit writing ridiculous laws.

Like this one.  From Tennessee, thank goodness.

 Don't show it to an Alabama legislator.  We don't want a special session.

.