Author Archives: monica

Valle del Sol v. Whiting: Appeal to 9th Circuit

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 14, 2012

CONTACT
Adela de la Torre, National Immigration Law Center, (213) 674-2832; [email protected]
Steve Gosset, ACLU national, 212-549-2666; [email protected]
Laura Rodríguez, MALDEF, 310-956-2425; [email protected]

Appeals Court Asked to Block Show-Me-Your-Papers Provision of Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law

Civil Rights Groups Say Substantial Claims about Most Notorious Section of SB 1070 Must Be Resolved

SAN FRANCISCO – A coalition of civil rights groups has appealed a federal district court decision that would allow the most notorious portion of Arizona’s anti-immigrant law to go into effect.

The appeal, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, was filed eight days after U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton denied a request to block the “show-me-your-papers” provision of the Arizona law, SB 1070, from going into effect later this month. The coalition today asked the Ninth Circuit to suspend the provision for the duration of its appeal.

The provision requires police to verify the citizenship or immigration status of people arrested, stopped, or detained if there is a reasonable suspicion that they are in the country unlawfully. In June, the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that three other key provisions of SB 1070 are unconstitutional, but declined to block section 2(B), the show-me-your-papers provision. Several other parts of SB 1070 are blocked by separate injunctions issued by the district court.

“Section 2(B) of SB 1070 threatens fundamental rights of Latinos and other people of color in Arizona,” said Linton Joaquin, general counsel of the National Immigration Law Center. “We are committed to fighting this law until it is permanently stricken. We look forward to finally having our civil rights claims addressed in court.”

“The plaintiffs in this case have raised substantial claims against section 2(B), and the courts should not allow the provision to go into effect without even considering those claims, which is what will happen if the court of appeals denies the request we are filing today,” said Omar Jadwat, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project. “As the history of this litigation shows, we are determined to fight SB 1070 and continue to work to preserve all Arizonans’ rights to be free from harassment and profiling.”

“The very high likelihood of irreparable harm from any implementation of a law that effectively mandates improper racial profiling by law enforcement officers, who are required to engage in immigration enforcement for which they are not trained, imperils the taking of all possible steps in court to bar such implementation,” said Thomas Saenz, president and general counsel of MALDEF.

The coalition includes the ACLU, the ACLU of Arizona, NILC, MALDEF, the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, the Asian Pacific American Legal Center and the Asian American Justice Center, both members of the Asian American Center for Advancing Justice, as well as the NAACP.  The law firms of Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, Altshuler Berzon LLP, and Daniel Ortega are also acting as co-counsel in the case.

The coalition’s emergency motion for an injunction pending appeal is available atwww.nilc.org/document.html?id=808.

# # #

 

Share

Arizona’s SB 1070: Court Blocks Another Provision

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 5, 2012

CONTACT
Adela de la Torre, 213-674-2832, [email protected]

Federal Court Blocks Part of Arizona’s Anti-Immigrant Law; Allows “Show Me Your Papers” Provision to Stand

Civil Rights Coalition Will Continue to Fight Against Racial Profiling Law

PHOENIX – A federal district court today blocked a provision in Arizona’s anti-immigrant law that aimed to criminalize friends and family members who engage in everyday activities with undocumented immigrants, but failed to block section 2(B) of SB 1070, which forces police officers to demand “papers” of those they believe are in the country unlawfully. Civil rights groups challenging SB 1070 contend that section 2(B) encourages racial profiling, mandates illegal detention, and betrays American values.

“Today’s ruling will lead to rampant racial profiling of Latinos and others who might be ‘suspected’ of being in Arizona without authorization. This isn’t just a blow to our plaintiffs, but also a step back from our core values of equality under the law. We are committed to continuing the fight against this law in our case until it is permanently struck down,” said Linton Joaquin, general counsel of the National Immigration Law Center.

The “show me your papers” section of the law will not take effect until further order from the court, which will not happen immediately. The provision blocked today by the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona aimed to create criminal penalties for individuals who drive or live with an immigrant who lacks authorization to live in the country. Similar provisions found in anti-immigrant laws in Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina have been blocked by courts at the district and appellate levels.

“After today, regrettably, Latinos will face civil rights violations across Arizona because the court failed to recognize that the ‘show me your papers’ law will subject Latinos to illegal arrests and racial profiling,” said Victor Viramontes, MALDEF national senior counsel. “We will closely monitor the state’s attempts to implement this deeply flawed law.”

“The district court was correct in blocking Arizona’s harboring statute, which criminalized many everyday interactions with unauthorized immigrants,” said Cecillia Wang, director of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project. “Unfortunately, the district court’s ruling let the ‘show me your papers’ law stand, despite significant new evidence that it was passed with a discriminatory motive and will result in illegal detentions. The ruling puts an enormous burden on the countless Arizona residents who will be victims of racial profiling and illegal detentions because of this law. We remain committed to fighting what is left of SB 1070 and defending the rights of all Arizonans to be free from this unjust law.”

The decision is the latest legal move in Valle del Sol v. Whiting, a class action legal challenge to SB 1070 that was filed in May 2010. This challenge, which was brought by a coalition of civil rights organizations, includes civil rights claims against Arizona’s racial profiling law that were not raised in the U.S. Supreme Court case over SB 1070 brought by the federal government. Plaintiffs include Jim Shee, an Arizona-born citizen of Spanish and Chinese descent who was racially profiled.

“While today’s ruling puts civil rights at risk, it does nothing to undermine our resolve to continue fighting until SB 1070 is struck down in its entirety,” said Chris Newman, legal director of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network.

The coalition includes the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU); the ACLU of Arizona; the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF); the National Immigration Law Center (NILC); the National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON); the Asian Pacific American Legal Center (APALC) and the Asian American Justice Center (AAJC), both members of the Asian American Center for Advancing Justice; and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). Law firms Roush McCracken Guerrero and Miller and Ortega, as well as  Munger, Tolles and Olson and Altshuler Berzon LLP provided support.

A copy of the order is available here: www.nilc.org/document.html?id=807.

 

Share

Report: Racial Profiling in Alabama

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 28, 2012

CONTACT
Adela de la Torre, 213-674-2832, [email protected]

New Report Uncovers Depth of Humanitarian Crisis Caused by Alabama’s Draconian Anti-Immigrant Law

Analysis of Thousands of Calls to Legal Hotline Shows Widespread Racial Profiling in the Wake of HB 56

LOS ANGELES — Calls to a legal hotline in the months after Alabama’s draconian anti-immigrant law went into effect demonstrate the disastrous consequences that a law like HB 56 has on all segments of society, according to a new report released by the National Immigration Law Center today. The report provides an overview of the more than 6,000 calls that were made to the hotline, which was hosted by the Southern Poverty Law Center and staffed by a coalition of civil rights organizations immediately after a federal district court allowed the majority of HB 56 to take effect. The report focuses on three specific types of abuse: racial profiling at the hands of law enforcement, discrimination at workplaces and other public places, and HB 56’s effect on Alabama schoolchildren.

“While much has been made of the economic impact of a racist law like HB 56, precious little has been said about the human cost of laws that discriminate against specific ethnic groups,” said Karen Tumlin, managing attorney for the National Immigration Law Center and co-author of the report. “Hotline callers have reported that they have been singled out at the doctor’s office, in the workplace, and at the local Wal-Mart, simply because of the way they look or sound. This type of behavior – and laws that implicitly condone it – is beneath our most fundamental values for fairness and equality, and should be rejected by all Americans.”

The report profiles the story of one hotline caller who had called the police to report that someone had vandalized his small business. Instead of investigating the crime, however, the responding police officer began to ask questions about whether the wife of businessman – a lawful resident – had authorization to live in the United States.

The legal hotline, which is housed at the Southern Poverty Law Center and staffed by volunteers from the Center as well as volunteers from the National Immigration Law Center, ACLU, MALDEF, and LatinoJustice PRLDEF, has received more than 6,000 calls to date. These organizations are part of a larger coalition that challenged HB 56 in July 2011. The challenge has led federal courts to block most of Alabama’s anti-immigrant law, though the dangerous provision forcing police officers to demand “papers” of those they suspect may be in the country without authorization remains in effect.

Established in 1979, the National Immigration Law Center is the only national legal advocacy organization in the United States exclusively dedicated to defending and advancing the rights and opportunities of low-income immigrants. NILC uses a variety of tools, including policy analysis, litigation, education and advocacy, to advance this mission. Over the past three decades, NILC has won landmark legal decisions protecting fundamental civil rights, thwarted policies that would have devastated the lives of low-income immigrants and their family members, and advanced major policies that reinforce our nation’s values of equality and justice for all.

To download a copy of the report, visit www.nilc.org/document.html?id=800.

To speak with an author of the report or one of the callers profiled in the report, please contact Adela de la Torre at 213-674-2832 or [email protected].

###

 

Share

Court Blocks Most Provisions of GA HB 87 & AL HB 56

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 20, 2012

CONTACT
Adela de la Torre, NILC, (213) 674-2832; [email protected]

Federal Court Blocks Most Provisions of Georgia and Alabama’s Anti-Immigrant Laws

ATLANTA — A federal appeals court today blocked most of the challenged provisions of Alabama and Georgia’s anti-immigrant laws. Significantly, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit found that section 28 of Alabama’s law, which requires the immigration verification of newly enrolled K-12 students, violates the Equal Protection Clause and could interfere with children’s constitutional right to education. The court also blocked the registration and contracts provisions found in Alabama’s law, HB 56. In the Georgia ruling, the court determined that a section criminalizing transporting or harboring of immigrants was not permissible.

In both the Georgia and Alabama cases, the court issued a narrow ruling allowing the “show me your papers” provisions of HB 56 and HB 87 to remain in or go into effect, but leaving open the possibility of future challenges on civil rights or due process grounds.

“Today’s decisions send a strong message that state attempts to criminalize immigrants and their loved ones will not be tolerated,” said Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center. “Alabamian children can now start the new school year without fear that their citizenship will be questioned, and Georgians can continue to give neighbors and friends a ride without first asking for their “papers.” Although we are disappointed that the racial profiling provisions of Alabama and Georgia’s law have not been blocked, we will continue to fight them both within and outside the courtroom.”

“We are pleased that this ruling has sent a strong message to Alabama and other states that they cannot enact hate-filled laws to try to drive an entire class of people from their borders,” said Mary Bauer, legal director for the SPLC. “We are thrilled that students returning to schools this week will return to safer and more welcoming environments. We will continue to challenge the provisions left in place because, as we have already seen in Alabama, these laws cannot be enforced without racial profiling.”

Omar Jadwat, senior staff attorney with the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project, said: “The court today rejected many parts of Alabama and Georgia’s anti-immigrant laws, including attempts to criminalize everyday interactions with undocumented immigrants and Alabama’s callous attempt to deprive some children of their constitutional right to education. The court explicitly left the door open to further challenges against the “show me your papers” provision, which we will continue to fight in order to protect people’s constitutional rights.”

The coalition includes the Southern Poverty Law Center, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Immigration Law Center, the ACLU of Georgia, the Mexican American Legal and Educational Fund (MALDEF), the ACLU of Alabama, the Asian Law Caucus, the Asian American Justice Center, and LatinoJustice PRLDEF.

###

 

Share

NILC Partnering in “Own the Dream / Únete al Sueño”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 7, 2012

OWN THE DREAM / ÚNETE AL SUEÑO
As Deferred Action Becomes DREAMers’ Reality, National Immigration Law Center Joins New Campaign to Help Thousands of Immigrants Who Arrived as Children

WASHINGTON – The National Immigration Law Center (NILC) is today partnering with the United We Dream (UWD) Network to launch “Own the Dream/Únete al Sueño,” a national campaign aimed at helping hundreds of thousands of aspiring young Americans brought to this country as children to request “deferred action,” or temporary relief from deportation. The deferred action for childhood arrivals (DACA) program was announced by President Obama on June 15, 2012, and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will begin accepting deferred action requests on August 15.

Specifically, the Own the Dream campaign will ensure that there is a national and local infrastructure to support DREAMers who are eligible for this opportunity so they can stay in the United States to complete their education and contribute to the economy. NILC will help the campaign by ensuring that accurate information and trusted legal assistance is provided to DREAMers and their families.

At a press conference this morning, NILC DC Director Don Lyster spoke about the Own the Dream campaign’s effort to ensure legal services to as many DREAMers as possible.

“We are proud to join the United We Dream Network and other DREAM activists in launching this critical campaign. NILC, along with our Own the Dream partners at American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC), Immigration Advocates Network (IAN), National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild (NLG-NIP), and other organizations, are developing a comprehensive strategy, including a centralized website and a toll-free national hotline, to ensure affordable, high-quality legal services for as many DREAMers as possible.”

Beginning August 25, the campaign will host a series of application center events for DREAMers who want to submit a request for deferred action under the new guidelines, with campaign partners providing each applicant on-site legal advice from attorneys and the launch of a website to facilitate the application process.

Other campaign partners include AILA, CLINIC, National Council of La Raza, Asian Pacific American Legal Center, America’s Voice Education Fund, NLG-NIP, National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, American Immigration Council, Immigration Advocates Network, PICO Network, Mi Familia Vota, Presente.org, Farmworker Justice, Service Employees International Union, and AFL-CIO.

###

 

Share

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 3, 2012

MUCH NEEDED GUIDANCE FOR DREAMERS

Guidance on Deferred Action Requests Provides Clarity for Those Seeking Relief

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) today announced guidance to better inform American immigrant youth who could qualify for deferred action, a form of immigration relief that would allow these individuals to lawfully work in the country they call home. Below is a statement from Don Lyster, the National Immigration Law Center’s DC director:

“The Obama administration has provided much- needed additional information about the deferred action application process. It is evident that a lot of careful thought and consideration went into these guidelines, which should better inform those who plan to request deferred action on and after August 15.

“DREAMers, the primary group impacted by this policy change, should remember that although these guidelines provide clarity on the request process, the request process is still not open. Do NOT allow yourself to become a victim of notario fraud: no one can request deferred action until August 15. Any claims made otherwise are false.

“We look forward to continuing to work with DREAMers, attorneys, advocates, and the administration to ensure that this important policy is implemented fairly, vigorously and uniformly across the country.”

Some of the most valuable information found in the guidelines informs advocates and DREAMers about:

Fees. Those who request deferred action should expect to pay $465, which includes a $380 fee for the employment authorization application and an $85 fee for fingerprints. Fee waivers cannot be requested for the application for employment authorization and biometric collection. However, fee exemptions will be available in limited circumstances.

Confidentiality of personal information. USCIS has maintained that it will share information about applicants with immigration enforcement authorities only when issues of fraud, national security, or conviction are present. Otherwise, confidentiality of the requestor will be maintained.

Currently in school. To meet the “currently in school” criterion for deferred action, you must be enrolled in school on the date you submit your request.

Clarification on Criminality. Those who have committed ‘status offenses,’ or been penalized for offenses that are tied to their immigration status (e.g., crimes created by anti-immigrant laws like SB 1070) will not be disqualified from deferred action.

Travel. If you travel outside of the United States after August 15, 2012, you aren’t eligible for consideration.  However, if USCIS approves your request for deferred action, you will be permitted to travel outside of the United States if you apply for and receive advance parole from USCIS.  Advance parole allows an individual to leave the United States for humanitarian, business, and education reasons.

The National Immigration Law Center will continually update its website with the latest information about deferred action. Please visit www.nilc.org/dreamdeferred.html for the latest information about this policy.

The National Immigration Law Center has played a leading role in the DREAM movement since the first introduction of the DREAM Act in 2001. In 2008, NILC became the anchor organization for the United Dream Network, which is the largest immigrant youth–led organization working to obtain a path to citizenship and improve access to higher education for undocumented immigrant youth in the nation.

# # #

 

Share

Federal Court Asked to Block Provision of SB 1070

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 17, 2012

Civil Rights Groups Ask Federal Court to Block Remaining Section of Arizona’s Racial Profiling Law

Damaging Provision of SB 1070 Could Take Effect in a Few Days without Court Action

PHOENIX — A coalition of civil rights organizations today asked a federal district court to block implementation of the “show me your papers” provision of SB 1070, Arizona’s racial profiling law, until the court has had time to consider additional legal claims that the law is unconstitutional.

The civil rights organizations’ lawsuit includes evidence and claims that are not present in the federal government’s separate challenge to SB 1070, on which the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision last month. In its decision, the Supreme Court struck down three other provisions of SB 1070. The Court noted potential constitutional problems with section 2(B), the “show me your papers” provision, but did not strike it down based on the evidence and claims that the federal government brought in its case. The Court noted, however, that other challenges could be brought against the section.

In their motion today, the civil rights groups contend that section 2(B) unlawfully discriminates against Latinos and individuals of Mexican origin. The groups present evidence that legislators who supported the law routinely used false “facts” and discriminatory language and that they intended section 2(B) to impose statewide the racial profiling tactics used by Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County. The groups also introduced new evidence demonstrating that, if it is allowed to go into effect, section 2(B) will violate the U.S. Constitution’s Fourth Amendment and the well established principle, which the Supreme Court reaffirmed in last month’s decision, that federal immigration law preempts state immigration enforcement laws. Finally, the groups ask the district court to block a separate provision of SB 1070 that creates a state crime for “harboring” undocumented individuals, which the Supreme Court’s recent decision makes clear is unconstitutional.

The request was made on behalf of plaintiffs in Valle del Sol, et al. v. Whiting, et al. (formerly known as Friendly House, et al. v. Whiting, et al.), a class action lawsuit challenging SB 1070, which was filed in May 2010.

“Our Constitution protects us from state laws that intend to discriminate based on the color of a person’s skin or her or his nationality,” said Karen Tumlin, managing attorney with the National Immigration Law Center. “The district court should block this hateful provision that threatens countless Arizonans’ basic right to live free from fear of harassment or prolonged detention.”

Police chiefs across the country have long concluded that section 2B could not be implemented in a race-neutral manner. Immigration experts agree that there is no way to determine immigration status based on external or physical characteristics and that police will end up using race and ethnicity to decide who could be in the country without authorization.

“In a state that’s more than 30 percent Latino, requiring police to act as immigration agents is an invitation to racial profiling on a massive scale” said Omar Jadwat, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project. “Police chiefs and communities know these laws don’t work, and we hope that the courts will continue to block them from going forward.”

“The ‘papers provision’ is unconstitutional and the people of Arizona should not be subject to this law for even a single day,” said Victor Viramontes, MALDEF National Senior Counsel. “This law would result in Latinos being illegally arrested and detained across Arizona.”

The coalition includes NILC, ACLU, MALDEF, the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, the ACLU of Arizona, the Asian Pacific American Legal Center and the Asian American Justice Center, both members of the Asian American Center for Advancing Justice, as well as the NAACP. The law firms of Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, Altshuler Berzon LLP, and Roush, McCracken, Guerrero, Miller & Ortega are also acting as co-counsel in the case.

# # #

Read the complaint here: www.nilc.org/document.html?id=787.

 

Share

Alabama & the Supreme Court’s SB 1070 Decision

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 2, 2012

Civil Rights Groups: Alabama Must Follow Supreme Court Ruling on Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law and Collect Vital Data

MONTGOMERY, Ala. – The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), the National Immigration Law Center (NILC), and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) are demanding that Alabama’s attorney general ensure the state adheres to last week’s ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that struck down most of Arizona’s anti-immigrant law. With Alabama the only state that has implemented a controversial provision upheld for now, the groups also called on Attorney General Strange to immediately begin collecting data on stops and arrests.

The demands were made in a letter the groups sent to Strange this morning. The letter also demands that Strange issue guidance on enforcement of the law, also known as HB 56, in a manner that conforms to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling last week in Arizona v .United States.

The letter urged the attorney general to clearly explain how his office will ensure that Alabama law enforcement officers will neither engage in racial profiling to enforce these provisions, nor engage in unlawful detention to determine individuals’ immigration status.

“Alabama is now ground zero in this fight against these racist laws,” said Mary Bauer, legal director at the SPLC. “We have already seen evidence that the Alabama law is being enforced in ways that violate the Supreme Court’s ruling. That’s why it is essential that Alabama Attorney General Strange provide clear guidance to law enforcement as to what is and is not permissible.  It is also critical that law enforcement begin collecting this vital data.”

While the Supreme Court ruled much of Arizona’s anti-immigrant law, SB 1070, is unconstitutional, the one provision not blocked by the court was the racial profiling provision, which mandates that police demand “papers” of those they suspect are in the country without authorization.

Despite upholding this provision for now, the court did express significant concern over whether when actually implemented, it would prove to be unconstitutional as well. Unlike other states that have passed anti-immigrant laws, Alabama is the only state that has implemented the “papers please” provision.

“State and local government officials in Alabama are on notice: They cannot detain people based on a suspicion about immigration status,” said Cecillia Wang, director of ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project. “And it is as clear as ever that racial profiling is wrong and illegal. The state attorney general must take swift action to ensure that officers act within the bounds of the U.S. Constitution. If he does not, we will take swift action to defend the basic civil rights of Alabamians.”

In upholding this section, justices expressed concerns that in its implementation, this provision might also prove to be unconstitutional. Anecdotal evidence suggests Alabama’s implementation of the anti-immigrant law has created racial profiling. Collecting data going forward is integral to demonstrate whether the court’s fears are correct.

“The experience in Alabama demonstrates that laws like HB 56 and SB 1070 cannot be implemented in a race-neutral manner,” said Karen Tumlin, mangaging attorney for the National Immigration Law Center. “Ultimately, we believe these laws will not withstand constitutional scrutiny; until then, Attorney General Strange should do everything in his power to prevent additional civil rights abuses.”

The letter noted the following examples of abuse reported to the coalition:

  • In October 2011, an immigrant woman called the police after she was hit by her ex-husband. The police arrived on the scene and arrested the woman, who was unable to show her immigration papers.
  • In November 2011, a family was pulled over by police near Decatur, Ala. Despite the fact that the father (the vehicle’s driver) was a lawful permanent resident and the children were U.S. citizens, the entire family was arrested because the wife/mother was not carrying her immigration documents with her. They were detained for approximately five hours.
  • In February 2012, two Latino men conversing at a gas station in northeastern Alabama were approached by two local police officers. The officers demanded that the men produce “green cards.” When the men could not do so, the officers arrested the men and held them for several days. Neither man was ever charged with a crime.

The coalition will continue to monitor the enforcement of Alabama’s anti-immigrant law for inconsistencies with the Arizona ruling as it awaits a response from the attorney general.

#  #  #

 

Share

SB 1070 Provision Still Enjoined

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 28, 2012

CONTACT
Adela de la Torre, NILC, (213) 674-2832; [email protected]
Victor Viramontes, MALDEF, (213) 629-2512; [email protected]
ACLU national, (212) 549-2666; [email protected]
Alessandra Soler, ACLU of Arizona, 602-773-6006 (office) or 602-301-3705 (cell)

NATIONAL CIVIL RIGHTS COALITION TO ARIZONA GOV. BREWER: SB 1070 RACIAL PROFILING PROVISION IS STILL ENJOINED

Brewer Warned Against Any Implementation

LOS ANGELES – The coalition representing the plaintiffs in the ongoing civil rights legal challenge to SB 1070, Friendly House v. Whiting, have sent a letter to counsel for all defendants, including Governor Jan Brewer, explaining that SB 1070 ‘s racial profiling provision, section 2 (B), may not be implemented unless a federal court dissolves the injunction.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Arizona v. United States did not lift the injunction, and the case will be sent to the lower courts for further proceedings. As a result, no law enforcement agency in Arizona should currently be implementing section 2(B).

The letter to Governor Brewer’s defense counsel is available at www.nilc.org/document.html?id=768.


The civil rights coalition includes the ACLU, NILC, MALDEF, NDLON and the ACLU of Arizona as well as APALC and AAJC, both members of the Asian American Center for Advancing Justice.

# # #

 

Share

U.S. Supreme Court Decision on Affordable Care Act

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 28, 2012

CONTACT
Adela de la Torre, [email protected]; 213-674-2832

SUPREME COURT ON HEALTH CARE: A VICTORY FOR WORKING FAMILIES

We Need to Keep Moving Forward to Achieve True Reform

WASHINGTON — In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court today upheld the current law of the land, the Affordable Care Act (ACA), as constitutional. The Court affirmed that the requirement to purchase health insurance is within Congress’s power to tax, and that states can choose to expand Medicaid to low-income individuals, but it limited the federal government’s ability to compel states to do so. The ACA, which represents the most significant change to the nation’s health care system in 45 years, will allow 31 million previously uninsured Americans to receive affordable health insurance and already has begun to curb abuses by insurance companies. However, undocumented immigrants remain excluded from obtaining health care under the law. Below is a statement from Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center:

“Today’s decision will give millions of Americans, including immigrants and communities of color who are disproportionately uninsured, an opportunity to buy affordable health insurance for themselves and their children and to seek the care they need. The Supreme Court, like millions of Americans, understands that no mother should have to choose between rent and life-saving medical treatment for her child, and our young adults should not be shut out of insurance due to a preexisting condition.

“States and the federal government should now work together to swiftly implement this landmark legislation so that more Americans can continue to personally benefit from this law. This law gives more Americans the opportunity to be healthy and be financially secure. Health care for everyday individuals should not be held hostage to partisan politics. The American people, the legislature, and now the Supreme Court have spoken; let us now begin the process of moving forward together to ensure that everyone can afford to get the health care they need and make our communities and country stronger.

“The Supreme Court’s decision to reaffirm states’ flexibility to expand affordable health care to the most vulnerable in our society beckons states to do what is in the best interest of their residents.  How a state treats its most vulnerable residents is a reflection of our moral and ethical duty to each other. In this great nation, a person’s access to quality, affordable care should not solely depend on his or her zip code.

“Everyone living in the United States should have the same opportunities to protect their families, be healthy and safe from harm, and to achieve their hopes and dreams. The Affordable Care Act represents a step forward to attaining those goals. But it is important to remember that there is much left to be done to make sure the health system reflects our changing demographics and our basic values. We need to look ahead and work towards our goal of ensuring that there is quality care for everyone, regardless of income and immigration status in the U.S.”

# # #

 

Share