One state down – plenty to go. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against SB1070 today, once again re-affirming the discriminatory and unconstitutional nature of this bill. Now we must demand that private prisons corporations stop pushing copycat bills across the country! – Axel Caballero – Cuentame co-founder, producer.

VIA NY TIMES

PHOENIX — The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the state of Arizona on Monday and let stand a lower court decision blocking the most contentious parts of the state’s immigration law from going into effect.

The decision calling the provisions unconstitutional was a victory for the Obama administration, which sued to challenge the law, known as Senate Bill 1070, because it interfered with the federal government’s authority over immigration.

Last July, just days before the law was set to take effect, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton issued an injunction blocking parts of it. Gov. Jan Brewer, a supporter of the crackdown, had filed an appeal seeking to have the injunction lifted.

After the appeals court rejected the state’s request on Monday and issued a lengthy decision indicating it believed the state had overstepped its authority, State Senator Russell Pearce, the principal sponsor of the law, remained defiant, saying the issue would ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court.

“This battle is a battle of epic proportions,” he said in a statement, indicating he was not surprised by the ruling. “It is about a state’s right to enforce the laws of this land and protect its citizens from those who break our laws.”

Critics of the law, who have held street protests and filed lawsuits to strike it down, were thrilled with the ruling but vowed to continue to fight Arizona’s efforts to enact its own immigration restrictions.

“One of the reasons we have a judiciary is so that mobs don’t rule, so that when the legislature oversteps its bounds there is someone to stop them,” said Omar Jadwat of the A.C.L.U. Immigrants’ Rights Project. “In this case, the judiciary is standing in the way of an unconstitutional act.”

It was not immediately clear how the state will proceed. It could appeal the decision to the full Court of Appeals or it could immediately appeal to the Supreme Court. The state could also hold off on appealing and return to the district court in Phoenix, where Judge Bolton continues to oversee ongoing challenges to the rest of the law.

“In upholding Judge Bolton’s decision, the Ninth Circuit has signaled, in a loud and clear voice, that Arizona’s attempt to regulate immigration law and policy directly violates the Constitution and will not stand,” said David Leopold, president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

The decision will be closely watched in several states that are considering Arizona-style laws of their own. The Georgia Senate was set to debate the matter on Monday and another bill appeared on the move in Alabama. Other states watered down or abandoned tough bills to avoid the litigation – and the protests – that Arizona faced, including Mississippi and Kansas. After lawmakers in Utah concluded that the administration’s legal challenge to Arizona was likely to prevail, they took a different political tack. They voted for a milder enforcement bill, without the most controversial provisions from Arizona’s law, but also voted to create a state guest worker program for illegal immigrants there.

Backers of the law said they were pleased with disagreements among the appeals court judges. Judge Carlos Bea, who was appointed by former President George W. Bush in 2003, issued a partial dissent in which he criticized the majority’s argument by quoting from Lewis Carroll’s “Alice in Wonderland.”

The law would have required police to question people about their immigration status if stopped for other matters and if the officers found reasonable suspicion they were undocumented. Critics said that was an open invitation to racial profiling.

Also challenged were provisions requiring immigrants to carry their papers, giving police the ability to arrest suspected illegal immigrants without a warrant, and making it a violation of state law for them to work or look for work.