Arizona immigration law - Washington Post

But she accepted the administration's arguments that sections of the law target immigrants, impose a burden on federal law enforcement and are "preempted" by federal law.

But the White House recognizes the power of the immigration debate in elections this fall as Republicans use anger over border crossings to energize conservative turnout.

A federal judge on Wednesday blocked the most contested provisions of Arizona's new immigration law one day before they were to take effect, ratcheting up the legal and political debate over the increasingly divisive issue.

She granted much of an injunction the administration had sought, blocking portions of the law from taking effect while the federal lawsuit proceeds.

A federal judge on Wednesday blocked the most contested provisions of Arizona's new immigration law one day before they were to take effect, ratcheting up the legal and political debate over the increasingly divisive issue.

She vowed to appeal Bolton's ruling Thursday to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit and to ask for an expedited review.

In her decision, Bolton accepted the Justice Department's argument that the law -- which empowers police to question people who they have a "reasonable suspicion" are illegal immigrants -- intrudes into federal immigration enforcement.

And Cecillia Wang, a lawyer for the ACLU -- which along with other civil rights groups filed one of six other lawsuits against Arizona -- said the judge had stopped "key egregious portions of the law."

They were led by Brewer, who also criticized unspecified "fear-mongers, those dealing in hate" and others who have spurred economic boycotts of the state.

In her decision, Bolton accepted the Justice Department's argument that the law -- which empowers police to question people who they have a "reasonable suspicion" are illegal immigrants -- intrudes into federal immigration enforcement.

Yet even as the contours of the legal case, which the Justice Department filed July 6, became more clear, the political din over the nation's estimated 12 million illegal immigrants grew louder.

A federal judge on Wednesday blocked the most contested provisions of Arizona's new immigration law one day before they were to take effect, ratcheting up the legal and political debate over the increasingly divisive issue.

It also set up a legal struggle that is likely to play out over several years and across numerous states, with Brewer vowing to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court and legal experts saying the high court is likely to hear it.

A federal judge on Wednesday blocked the most contested provisions of Arizona's new immigration law one day before they were to take effect, ratcheting up the legal and political debate over the increasingly divisive issue.

They were led by Brewer, who also criticized unspecified "fear-mongers, those dealing in hate" and others who have spurred economic boycotts of the state.

In Arizona, opponents of the law who had been planning campaigns of civil disobedience on Thursday said they were pleased with the injunction.

The Supreme Court -- with a working conservative majority -- accepts a fraction of appeals but may take this case because it presents a conflict of federal and state law, said Cristina Rodriguez, an expert on immigration and constitutional law at New York University Law School.

"Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked," wrote Bolton, a Democratic appointee, who allowed other, less-controversial portions of the law to take effect Thursday as scheduled.

The expected increase in requests for immigration status checks by Arizona authorities would "divert resources from the federal government's other responsibilities and priorities," wrote Bolton, who allowed other portions of the law to stand, including requiring police to work with federal officials in enforcing immigration laws.

Hannah August, a Justice Department spokeswoman, said lawyers believe the court "ruled correctly" and added: "This administration takes its responsibility to secure our borders seriously and has dedicated unprecedented resources to that effort."

The Supreme Court -- with a working conservative majority -- accepts a fraction of appeals but may take this case because it presents a conflict of federal and state law, said Cristina Rodriguez, an expert on immigration and constitutional law at New York University Law School.

Yet even as the contours of the legal case, which the Justice Department filed July 6, became more clear, the political din over the nation's estimated 12 million illegal immigrants grew louder.

But she accepted the administration's arguments that sections of the law target immigrants, impose a burden on federal law enforcement and are "preempted" by federal law.

"The Court by no means disregards Arizona's interests in controlling illegal immigration," the judge wrote.

The expected increase in requests for immigration status checks by Arizona authorities would "divert resources from the federal government's other responsibilities and priorities," wrote Bolton, who allowed other portions of the law to stand, including requiring police to work with federal officials in enforcing immigration laws.

"Requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked," wrote Bolton, a Democratic appointee, who allowed other, less-controversial portions of the law to take effect Thursday as scheduled.

Republicans condemned Bolton's decision and what they called the administration's failure to fight illegal immigration.

The injunction is preliminary and does not guarantee that the administration will prevail in its effort over the next several months to have the entire law declared unconstitutional.

Senior Democrats have said they are hoping that anti-immigration sentiment drives Latino voters to the Democratic Party in 2012 and beyond.