Arizona Backs off on Discriminatory Traffic Stops Targeting Immigration Status

Jay W. Belle Isle — September 19, 2016

Image courtesy of flaglerlive.com.

S.B 1070, the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act (passed in 2010) has long been the focus of controversy. It is the strictest anti-immigration law in the U.S., making it mandatory for police officers to ask those pulled over to “show me your papers” to prove their legal immigration status. After several legal challenges, a settlement was reached in which Arizona backs off on discriminatory traffic stops targeting immigration status, among other things.

S.B 1070, the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act (passed in 2010) has long been the focus of controversy. It is the strictest anti-immigration law in the U.S., making it mandatory for police officers to ask those pulled over to “show me your papers” to prove their legal immigration status. After several legal challenges, a settlement was reached in which Arizona backs off on discriminatory traffic stops targeting immigration status, among other things.

Former Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed the bill into law in April 2010 and the opposition to the law, which plaintiffs argued may encourage racial profiling, began almost immediately. Entertainers cancelled shows, businesses canceled conventions and protesters hit the pavement all across the state. Brewer’s reasoning was that the feds weren’t doing enough to keep illegal immigrants out of Arizona, which has a 368-mile-long border with Mexico.

Official challenges started when the Obama administration spoke up, saying that Arizona was overstepping its bounds as only the federal government could enforce immigration laws. The challenges continued and the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the issue in 2012. Its ruling struck down parts of the law, such as the section mandating that all immigrants carry their papers 24/7.

However, the SCOTUS left arguably the worst, and certainly the most controversial section, in place: the “show me your papers” part. Under that section of S.B. 1070, Arizona’s police had to ask for papers and confirm the immigration status of those people they pulled over, whether for serious offenses or something as minor as a broken brake light.

Groups such as the National Immigration Law Center kept the fight going. Unfortunately, their attempts in federal court to eliminate the “show me your papers” section of the law on the ground that it discriminated against Hispanics failed. U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton ruled that the “show me your papers” section was, in fact, just fine.

Civil rights groups didn’t stop, though. They were appealing Judge Bolton’s September 2015 ruling when a settlement was finally reached. However, the settlement must still be approved by Judge Bolton.

The plaintiffs’ argument against S.B. 1070 included the possibility of a slippery slope leading to racial profiling, largely of Hispanics. Some groups even stated that racial profiling was already happening and that some people had even been subjected to wrongful detentions.

If approved, the settlement will have the following effects:

Police will cease asking for papers;
Police will cease detaining people while their immigration status is confirmed;
Arizona will pay $1.4M in legal fees to the plaintiffs; and
Arizona will recognize that it has limited power to enforce federal immigration laws.

New guidelines for Arizona police to follow are part of an informal opinion from Mark Brnovich, Arizona’s Attorney General. The opinion is on file with the court as part of the settlement agreement.

According to Karen Tumlin, the National Immigration Law Center’s legal director, “This makes it clear that you cannot detain someone even for a minute based on the belief the person is undocumented. This is a ground-breaking shift.”

There will be some who do not agree that S.B. 1070 was wrong or discriminatory. However, speaking of slippery slopes, such laws – and the changes in the way people are treated – always begin with one group. Other groups may turn a blind eye because it’s not happening to them. They may even support such laws. Until, one day, it is happening to them. I would rather see such laws struck down than risk the possibility that others may someday face the same discrimination (in fact, many others already do, via “unofficial” channels). And I would certainly like to avoid any situation in which such laws turn their attention to people like me.