From [HERE] A federal appeals court ruled on Monday that Alabama and Georgia could enforce key aspects of their laws against illegal immigration that allow police to check the status of criminal suspects. The Alabama opinion is [HERE] and the Georgia opinion is [HERE]. In partially lifting a lower-court injunction, the court acknowledged that the provision of the state's 2011 immigration law "invites ... racial profiling," but declared, "Reliance on race, color, or national origin that is constitutionally prohibited, however, is expressly forbidden by the Georgia statute."
The decision follows a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling upholding parts of a similar law in Arizona. The Atlanta-based court referenced that decision in its opinion to lift the injunction on the verification section, also known as section 8. "In Arizona v. United States, the Supreme Court approved of a similar state provision, and in light of that holding we likewise conclude at this stage of litigation that Plaintiffs are not likely to succeed on the claim that section 8 is pre-empted by federal law," the panel wrote.
Circuit Judge Charles Wilson wrote in a 33-page decision that Georgia' section on checking immigration status "is less facially problematic than the provision" that the Supreme Court let stand in Arizona. That law requires authorities to investigate immigration status when a detainee cannot prove their legality. The Georgia law merely authorizes such action.
The decisions were in line with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on a similar Arizona law, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta continued to block other parts of the two Southern states' laws, which have been challenged by the federal government and civil rights groups.
Judges said the laws' opponents were likely to prevail in their fight against provisions in both states that would make it a crime in some cases to knowingly harbor or transport an illegal immigrant.
The court also barred Alabama from requiring schools to check the immigration status of children upon enrollment and from requiring all immigrants to carry a registration document at all times.
"We conclude that most of the challenged provisions cannot stand," the court said regarding the Obama administration's case against Alabama.
The rulings follow a split Supreme Court decision in June on Arizona's first-of-its-kind crackdown on people who are in the country illegally in which the court upheld a measure requiring police to check the immigration status of people they stop and suspect are in the country illegally.
But the top U.S. court struck down provisions requiring immigrants to always carry immigration papers, banning illegal immigrants from soliciting work in public places, and allowing police arrests of immigrants without warrants if officers believed they committed crimes that would make them deportable.
Other states that used Arizona's example in crafting immigrations laws have been waiting for rulings of their own in light of that decision.
The mixed opinions from the appeals court on Monday drew praise from both sides of the issue. The House speaker in Alabama said the court had upheld the "real teeth" of that state's law, while critics hailed the injunction against the schools provision.
"The essence of Alabama's immigration law has been upheld by today's ruling," Republican Governor Robert Bentley said in a statement. "The Court is recognizing the state's authority to inquire on immigration status in certain circumstances."
Opponents vowed to keep fighting what have been dubbed the "show me your papers" provisions, which they argue cannot be enforced without racial profiling.
"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,'" said Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center.
Georgia is one of several states besides Arizona that has enacted anti-illegal immigration laws in recent years. Proponents have argued they are necessary in part because of alleged federal inaction. Opponents have argued that many of the laws are punitive to immigrants and that immigration policy must be steered by the federal government.
Wilson, however, also emphasized the Supreme Court's explanation that it was siding with Arizona before the law's actual implementation. "The Court left open the possibility that interpretation and application of Arizona's law could prove problematic in practice and refused to foreclose future challenges," Wilson wrote.
Basically, the court reasoned, future plaintiffs could raise constitutional issues if the law is enforced in a discriminatory way. Wilson noted that Georgia's law specifically bars racial profiling in its application.
The appeals court also ruled that part of Alabama's tough immigration law that ordered public schools to check the citizenship status of new students was ruled unconstitutional. It said police there also could continue to check papers for suspects they detain.
The appellate panel continued to block prosecution of certain individuals who knowingly harbor or transport an illegal immigrant during a crime, saying the lower court must still rule on a challenge, the Associated Press reports. Only one of 23 sections of the state's 2011 immigration bill have been overturned.
Attorney General Sam Olens said he was pleased the appeals court upheld the police checks but disagreed with the decision to keep the other part of the injunction in place. "We are currently reviewing the 11th Circuit's ruling to determine whether further appeal would be appropriate at this stage of the case," he said in his statement.
A lower court must still rule on both of those issues, which are part of a broader challenge to the law by activist groups and labor unions. Monday's decision dealt only with preliminary injunctions.
In a statement, Georgia Attorney General Sam Olens said he was generally pleased with the ruling but disagreed with the court on the section still being blocked.
"After over a year of litigation, only one of the 23 sections of (House Bill) 87 has been invalidated. We are currently reviewing the 11th Circuit's ruling to determine whether further appeal would be appropriate at this stage of the case," Olens said.
A spokesman for Gov. Nathan Deal also focused on the immediate result. "We knew Georgia was on solid footing" after the Arizona ruling, Brian Robinson said.
American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Omar Jadwat said he was disappointed the court didn't keep the injunction for the verification section but was pleased with the court's decision to keep one part of the injunction.
"I think it's a strong sign that all the state harboring laws will go down," Jadwat said.
He also said the organization will continue to challenge so-called "show-me-your-papers" provisions of the state immigration laws.
"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," he said in a statement. "The court explicitly left the door open to further challenges against the 'show me your papers' provision, which we will continue to fight."
State Rep. Matt Ramsey, R-Peachtree City, sponsored the immigration bill. "Just as we were pleased when the US Supreme Court upheld one of the center pieces of the Arizona law ... we are pleased that the 11th Circuit has upheld a similar provision in our Georgia law," Ramsey said.
Sitting with Wilson on the case were Circuit Judge Beverly Martin and District Judge Richard Voorhees, a special appointee from federal trial court in North Carolina. Wilson and Martin are Democratic appointees. Voorhees is a Republican appointee.