Federal judge dismisses Governor’s SB 1070 Counterclaim

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Anyone who is familiar with federal preemption doctrine saw this ruling coming. But our Governor and Attorney General who subscribe to long-discredited states' rights theories want to pursue politically motivated and ideologically driven frivolous lawsuits. It gives the Guv something for which to sell a book and from which to financially benefit.

Arizona has no legal right to sue the federal government for failing to secure the border, a federal judge ruled Friday. Judge dismisses Arizona's suit against feds over immigration law – East Valley Tribune: Immigration:

Judge Susan Bolton acknowledged that federal law directs the Department of Homeland Security to achieve “operational control’’ of the border. And a separate law requires construction of at least 700 miles of fencing.

But the judge said both of those are only goals and that Congress set no deadline for when that fence needs to be completed. Bolton said that means Arizona cannot seek — and she cannot grant — an order for the federal government to do something.

Bolton also rejected the state’s claim that the federal government, in failing to secure the border, was somehow hijacking state funds. That is based on the state’s contention it is forced to spend money to educate, provide medical care for and in some cases incarcerate illegal immigrants.

The judge said, though, nothing the federal government is or is not doing requires the state to take any action. “The complained of expenditures arise entirely from Arizona’s own policy choices and independent constitutional obligations and are not incurred as a result of any federal mandate,’’ Bolton wrote.

And Bolton made quick work of some of the state’s other claims, including one that contends the government is violating the federal constitution by failing to protect the country from “an invasion of undocumented aliens.’’

She pointed out that a federal appellate court rejected precisely the same arguments more than a decade ago.

On the issue of legal precedents, the Arizona Republic adds, Brewer's lawsuit over Obama immigration policy dismissed:

About half a dozen other states have pursued similar, and unsuccessful, legal efforts over the past two decades.

In 1994, Arizona was one of seven states that sought reimbursement for the costs of incarcerating and providing other services to illegal immigrants. Later that year, President Bill Clinton signed a bill that ordered the U.S. attorney general to reimburse states for prison costs or transfer inmates to federal prisons.

In 1996, California Gov. Pete Wilson filed suit, arguing that the federal government had failed to fully reimburse states and live up to the provisions of the law. The suit was dismissed.

In 2006, Colorado voters passed Referendum K, which ordered that state's attorney general to file a broader claim against the federal government, saying it failed to enforce immigration laws. A federal judge threw out the suit in 2007.

Bolton said that in some of those court rulings, higher appeals courts had made it clear that states cannot sue the federal government for failing to prevent illegal immigration. Burton, as a District Court judge, said she does not have the authority to overturn a ruling of an appeals court or the U.S. Supreme Court.

The legal fight is being fueled financially by a fund set up by Brewer to accept donations to fight off the Obama administration’s challenge to SB 1070. Gubernatorial press aide Matthew Benson said the state has collected $3.8 million to date, with less than $2.1 million paid out in legal fees and costs.

Meanwhile, the state is waiting to see if the Supreme Court will consider the preliminary injunction that halted parts of SB 1070 from going into effect.