Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Judge Blocks Part of Arizona Law
Aired July 28, 2010 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
T.J. HOLMES, CNN ANCHOR: All right. So, good to see you. I will see you later, buddy.
But, hello to you all.
Here's what we've got on "The Rundown" this hour. Recognize these little guys? These little creatures, geckos? Tiny lizards that can climb just about anything. Researchers are now using these little guys to build remarkable robotic climbing machine that has some amazing potential.
Also, out of Mexico, a gruesome discovery to tell you about. Severed heads of eight men discovered, found in an area that's been the scene of brutal turf battles between rival drug gangs.
Also this hour, online scammers are targeting -- would you believe this? They're actually using stolen photos of soldiers on dating Web sites to scam women out of money. That story is coming to you from our special investigations unit.
But, we do want to start with what is and will be a big story for quite some time. We are going to know something, whether it's in the next moment, the next minute, or the next hour. Something has to give in terms of the Arizona controversial immigration law. Either a judge is going to step in, or the law is going to go into effect tomorrow.
This law known as S.B. 1070, it requires police to question a person's legal immigration status if they've been detained for another reason, and if there's reason to suspect they're in the country illegally. You've heard all about this by now.
Right now, U.S. district judge, Susan Bolton, has yet to rule on seven lawsuits that are challenging that law, including the federal government's challenge that seeks to block the law from going into effect. She says she feels no obligation to hand down a ruling before a law goes into effect, which is tomorrow. Bolton says she wants to make sure she gets the ruling right. Not going to rush at all to make a decision.
Meanwhile, the Arizona governor, Jan Brewer, continues to push back on the Obama administration. She had an exclusive interview last night with our John King. And Governor Brewer says she's doing what she feels is necessary to protect the people of her state. Take a listen.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) GOV. JAN BREWER (R), ARIZONA: We are being invaded by illegal immigration in the state of Arizona. And this is another tool. And we are just helping the feds do their job because they won't do it.
The bottom line is that the people of Arizona are frustrated. We shouldn't have to do it. The federal government should be doing it. And if they won't, well, the legislature and the people of Arizona overwhelmingly believe that we need to enforce it and help them do their job. We're a nation of laws and we hope that those laws will be enforced.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HOLMES: Now, again, Judge Bolton says she could rule on actually part of the law and does not have to reject or approve the entire law as it is written. We're going to bring you her ruling as soon as it happens. Again, this could happen at any moment. The law goes into effect tomorrow. So, unless something happens today, that law will, in fact, go into effect.
Also tonight, at 7:00 Eastern, be sure to watch "JOHN KING, USA." He's taking his show on the road and will be with us live from Arizona. We are not going to go too far from that story at any point during the next couple of hours here in the CNN.
But want to move to another story that's making headlines. Leaks -- Army leaks. The Pentagon is trying to tackle the story right now. Another dump, if you will, from this site you've now heard about by now. It's called WikiLeaks. And now, they have released some 90,000 -- 90,000 documents -- secret documents for the Army.
They are looking into one man, one army private accused now of leaking possibly some of these documents. He's the same guy who's accused of leaking a video, a 2007 video that showed a Pentagon video from an ambush that took place in Iraq.
Our Pentagon correspondent, Barbara Starr, is on top of this story for us. She joins us now from the Pentagon.
So much to get into with this story here, but at the same time, are we still hearing -- according to the government at least -- there's nothing that damaging in these 90,000 document that were just released.
BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, the Pentagon is looking at some of the documents, what it can review. But it's 90,000 documents; the officials say they have a long way to go to get through all of this. They are trying to determine how serious it is, whether it is specifically a risk to the troops, a risk to operations in the field. Some clues are beginning to emerge about what has happened here.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
STARR (voice-over): Private 1st Class Bradley Manning is now the focus of an expanded Army criminal investigation into the disclosure of nearly 90,000 classified documents, according to Pentagon officials. The widened investigation is looking at potential accomplices and which government computer systems the information came from.
GEOFF MORRELL, PENTAGON SPOKESMAN: There's a slew of people that have the access. It will be, as all these investigations are, very difficult. But we are determined to find out who is responsible for this and to make sure they pay and are held accountable for it.
STARR: Manning, already under military arrest for allegedly illegally downloading classified videos and documents. Months ago, he told a hacker how he did it.
In a series of online chat between Manning and former hacker Adrian Lamo, Manning said he pretended to listen to music while downloading classified material. The logs posted by Wired.com read, "Manning: Listened and lip-synced to Lady Gaga's telephone while exfiltratrating (ph) possibly the largest data spillage in American history. Pretty simple and unglamorous." The former hacker eventually tipped off federal authorities.
CNN producers continue to pore through the documents, thousands of revelations from field reports about the war. Some offering detailed insights.
In November of 2007, a trucking company called Four Horsemen International reported it was approached by the Taliban, with a price list for what it would cost the truckers to ensure safe passage through Taliban areas. Five hundred dollars for each truck driving across southern Afghanistan, $50 to $100 for shorter routes in the east.
There are even second and third hand reports of potential sightings of Osama bin Laden, according to documents given to "The Guardian" newspaper, but not posted on the main WikiLeaks sight. In this 2006 report, bin Laden is said to have been in meetings with other top Taliban and al Qaeda operatives where suicide bombers were given up to $50,000 to conduct attacks.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
HOLMES: And, Barbara, we know like you say there, they're still going through so many of these documents. So, what is the Pentagon more so worried about? Are they worried about how much information got out and how much is -- and what may be in it, or are they more worried that there's a leaker in their midst, and this guy was able to get his hands on all this stuff?
STARR: You know, all of it, T.J., to use an expression, they're worried about what they don't know that they don't know.
First of all, did he have accomplices? Is there something else out there, someone else out there that they don't know about? Going through these 90,000 documents, what else is in there that they don't know about? Now, what they have seen so far is classified secret. And I have to explain to people who may not follow this regularly, secret isn't all that classified. Thousands -- tens of thousands of military people have access to secret information. They're supposed to. It helps them do their job. It's relatively low-level reports for the field.
If there is material still to emerge that has a higher level of classification that may pose a direct risk, that is going to be a great concern to the Pentagon -- T.J.
HOLMES: And, also, Barbara, this is the same kid they're looking at now. And I say kid because he's a really young man, but he's the same one now who's accused of leaking that helicopter gun ship attack video from 2007.
But you talked about secret is not always that secret. But 90,000 documents -- how is he able to get a hold of that much stuff and get it out?
STARR: Yes. I mean, that is the question. This is a private first class, 22-year-old intelligence analyst. Clearly, he had for his job, as many do, access to this type of information. As we saw, what he basically did is he sat in front of a computer and pretended to be lip-syncing to Lady Gaga while he's downloading this stuff.
One of the key questions will be: were there any safeguards in the computer that would have noticed somebody, even with the authority nonetheless, was downloading 90,000 documents? Because that's not something anybody would really have in their job description and they would need to have that much access in one fell swoop. So, why was this not noticed in the computer monitoring systems? That's still a question to be asked.
HOLMES: A fascinating story that even includes Lady Gaga. So, Barbara Starr, we appreciate you as always. Thanks so much. I know you keep us up-to-date.
Well, coming up here, it's been 100 days now that we have seen these awful images. We've seen the slicks, the tar balls, the oiled animals. But just when things seem to be getting better, we're getting a reminder that looks and, in fact, be deceiving. Invisible oil on the Florida panhandle -- that's next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALI VELSHI, CNN ANCHOR: Breaking news in now: we just have word from the U.S. Coast Guard that the rig is deteriorating. The condition of the rig is deteriorating. We have seen recent pictures where the rig continues to burn. It is listing. There's a major concern if it continues to list, it will sink. If it sinks, that is going to create a remarkable environmental problem with oil being released, more oil that is being released.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HOLMES: Can you believe it? That was day three of the Gulf oil disaster. Little did we know what the next 97 days would bring. And that brings us to today, day 100 of the Gulf oil disaster. April 20th, that's when that rig first exploded. Eleven lives were lost.
Do you remember what you were doing back in April? And now, here we are just about through the summer.
Three months into this thing, we have seen a lot. We have seen a lot of things tried. We've seen a lot of things failed. We've seen a lot of people hurting. We have seen a lot of people remain resilient.
But we could finally be coming to some kind of closure -- at least when it comes to the well. Take a look at what BP thinks about where we are.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERT DUDLEY, INCOMING BP CEO (via telephone): We're cementing and making sure that that relief well, which is so close, is in good shape. And then by Monday, we're likely to begin something called "static kill," which is hooking up those manifolds and pumping heavy mud and cement down in the well.
Before, we were trying to push heavy mud down, what is effectively a hose that was shooting up oil and gas at very high velocities because of the gas there. Now, you have a closed system. So, we'll pump into it and what should happen is these heavy fluids are just going to float down into the well, hopefully, and into the rock and then shut off the flow.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HOLMES: You heard him talk about what should happen. We heard so many times over the past 100 days about what should happen and then didn't happen. But still, some people think there are reasons right now to be optimistic about what's happening. There is no oil gushing into the Gulf, hasn't been for the past couple of weeks actually, after they put that tighter seal on.
And, also, we are getting word that people are having a hard time right now finding oil out there. Has all of it been cleaned up? Has it been skimmed? What exactly is going on?
Our Rob Marciano is in Fort Pickens, Florida, for us.
Rob, hello to you. And I know you've seen a lot of these reports, which can -- which can be confusing to people. Eight hundred skimming vessels went out yesterday. They were able to skim one barrel of oil. That sounds like -- wait, where is this stuff exactly?
ROB MARCIANO, AMS METEOROLOGIST: Well, first of all, my guess is not all 800 went out. But there's 800 that are available, T.J. But you bring up a good question. It seems to have disappeared in the short amount of time. And I contribute that to two things. One, you've got the well capped almost two weeks, like you said. So, that's 50,000 barrels a day that's not coming out that has to be skimmed. And then you have Bonnie, which, you know, wasn't a strong storm, but we had pretty battering waves here along the coast for a good couple of days. And that probably beat it up good as well.
So, the oil may not be seen, but there's certainly a lot of broken up oil that is out there that is underneath the surface of the Gulf. The fact of the matter is, you know, it will be rolling on shore in spot, in waves, throughout the summer.
As a matter of fact, you know, we've -- there's been agencies that test the water. They've tested the air throughout the summer. But nobody has tested the beach. Even though parts of the beach look clean, there's more oil on here than just the eye can see.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
RIP KIRBY, COASTAL GEOLOGIST: There you can see, the sand looks pretty clean to the naked eye.
MARCIANO (on camera): Yes.
(voice-over): But after sunset, things look different.
(on camera): It lights up pretty good.
KIRBY: It does. And as you see, it's pretty much anywhere and everywhere.
MARCIANO (voice-over): Coastal geologist Rick Curvy can see the oil at night using an ultraviolent flashlight. Oil particles glow on the sand and in the water.
KIRBY: It leaves a little line of oily sand right there at the end of the wave run up. And when this dries in the morning, the wind will pick it up, and it will move it.
MARCIANO: Across the beach and everything that lives there.
(on camera): so, this is ghost crab hole, right?
KIRBY: Ghost crab hole, right.
MARCIANO: And --
(END VIDEOTAPE)
HOLMES: All right. We are jumping out of that because we have breaking news to bring you out of Arizona. We told you we were standing by.
And, right now, a judge has told us there is a partial injunction of the Arizona controversial immigration law.
Our Jeanne Meserve is standing by for us.
But -- again, is she standing by live, guys? Is that what I'm hearing? Or we're just -- OK. She's standing by.
Jeanne, hello. I see you there. And just clear this up, because Susan Bolton told us, she says she might maybe part of it, she doesn't have to strike the whole law. What do we mean when we hear there's now a partial injunction of this Arizona immigration bill?
JEANNE MESERVE, CNN HOMELAND SECURITY CORRESPONDENT: She is saying to the state of Arizona: stop on the key provision, controversial provision of this law, which is that police officers, when detaining people for other reasons, can query them if they have a reasonable suspicion about their immigration status.
The judge in this decision says that a violation of the Supremacy Clause, which gives the federal government control over immigration policy, a violation of that is neither equitable nor in the public interest. Such enforcement would likely burden legal resident aliens and interfere with patrol policy.
The judge goes onto say that the court by no means disregards Arizona's interest in controlling illegal immigration and addressing the concurrent problems with crime, including the trafficking of humans, drugs, guns and money. And even though Arizona's interest may be consistent with those of the federal government, it is not in the public interest for Arizona to enforce preempted law.
Bottom line, she is saying to the state of Arizona: I am granting this injunction on this key provision. This is not a universal injunction against the law. It had many other provisions.
We're still waiting through this to get the full picture. But on that key and very controversial provision that was supposed to go into effect tomorrow, the judge is saying "no-go."
Back to you.
HOLMES: Jeanne, we know there were several lawsuits in the works here. Now, is it possible she just gave ruling that will apply to them all? Is there a possibility she's going to rule on all these separate ones? This essentially handles it for all of those cases, is that correct?
MESERVE: Oh, well, I really can't tell you.
HOLMES: All right.
MESERVE: To be perfectly frank, I just got 36 pages of documents. I'm still wading through it. I went to the key portions which told us which part would go into effect. I can't answer your broader question here right now.
HOLMES: You know what? You know what, Jeanne, that's why I'm going to let you go ahead. I know you're just getting your hands on that. I'm going to give you a second to read through that a bit more before I toss more questions at you possibly that you haven't had a chance to read on yet. So, you go ahead.
And to our viewers, I'm just going to give our viewers the update about what we just heard from our Jeanne Meserve. The judge, Susan Bolton, out there in Phoenix, she has been hearing all of these cases -- seven different lawsuits challenging the Arizona immigration law. Seven different lawsuits are challenging it for different reasons.
The Justice Department, the Obama administration also challenging the law on the Supremacy Clause, saying, hey, it's the job of the federal judge to handle immigration law. Not Arizona's.
So, this one judge has been hearing all of these cases. And now, she has -- right before we are getting the law going into effect, scheduled to go into effect tomorrow, the 29th -- well, before it's able to, this judge has stepped in and said, in fact, she is going to block the key provision of it, going to block the most controversial part of it.
That controversial part being the part that would allow or require, I should say, law enforcement in Arizona to ask people about their immigration status. Once they stop those folks for some other violation. Once they make legal contact with them. Once they are accused of another crime. In that regard, they then can ask for their immigration status.
That is the part that so many groups around the country have sued over, saying, in fact, this would lead to some kind of racial profiling. Now, the federal government didn't sue under that particular provision, saying it would lead to racial profiling. Instead, they said, hey, it's the federal government's job. Not Arizona's.
The Arizona governor, Jan Brewer, has stood by her decision to sign this bill. Many Arizona lawmakers have stood by it, saying, we have an immigration problem in our state. The federal government is not going to help us out. We have to do it on our own.
You're seeing pictures here, protests there on the left, but also on the right. Jan Brewer after a meeting at the White House -- see, this is some earlier video you're looking at. But that's Jan Brewer. And she was on "JOHN KING, USA" last night, speaking on this regard once again.
So, we have been waiting for this day, waiting for this moment. These sides -- or both sides of the issue have been talking about this for quite some time -- months and months and months since she signed the bill back in April. But now, here we are some months later. It's set to go into effect and a judge has stepped in and said, no, it's not going to happen.
Now, we are certainly going to be reaching out to our legal analysts and others to try to break this down a lot further. What does this mean now? Yes. It might mean, tomorrow, we are not going to see this law go into effect. But, still, what does it mean the next day, the next day, in the coming weeks, in the coming months? What's next for this case? But, again, the important part, the breaking news we are just getting is that -- yes, in fact, the law in Arizona that has been so controversial over the past several months will not go into effect.
It's 20 past the hour. We continue to siphon, go through exactly what's in the ruling, the judge's ruling we just got.
Quick break and be right back on this breaking news story. Stay here.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HOLMES: A judge has issued a preliminary injunction of the controversial Arizona immigration bill. We just got that word moments ago. The judge in Arizona, Susan Bolton, has been hearing all these cases. There are seven different lawsuits challenging the law. But she has been hearing them and she has now ruled that, in fact, right now, it should not go into effect -- scheduled to go into effect tomorrow. She has partially blocked some of the law.
I'm going to read you some of the ruling just from the paper I have in front of me here. So, bear with me. And it says, "The court by no means disregards Arizona's interest in controlling illegal immigration in addressing the concurrent problems with crimes, including the trafficking of humans, drugs, guns and money. Even though Arizona's interest may be consistent with those of the federal government, it is not in the public interest for Arizona to enforce preempted law. The court therefore finds that preserving the status quo through a preliminary injunction is less harmful than allowing state laws that are likely preempted by federal law to be enforced."
There is a lot more legalese, I'm sure, to go through and many more stacks of paper. But this part that I just read you there kind of gets at the point here. And the point of this all is that it's not settled. The law is not going to go into effect tomorrow. It could go into effect somewhere down the road, depending what happens in the courtroom.
But right now -- for now, the law is not going into effect. And by now you know, but I will remind you if you don't.
This law was signed back in April. And it allows -- or rather, requires law enforcement officers in Arizona to, in fact, ask someone for their immigration status, ask for them to prove their immigration status if that officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country illegally. They're required to do that if they make contact with someone, if someone -- they make contact because that person is accused of any other crime. They're allowed to do that. That is where we are today.
Now, our Jessica Yellin is out in Phoenix for us. Jessica, we are going through with a fine tooth comb right now of this ruling. But what will this mean in the state politically now? Governor Brewer had been standing by this law. A lot of people in our polling even say they support this type of law. What does this mean now going forward? JESSICA YELLIN, CNN NATIONAL POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Right.
Let me add one point, one note and I get to your question, T.J., which is that, in terms of what this means, this ruling means for Arizona, it's my understanding, and we have to read more of the law, the law, much of it, some of it, will go into effect tomorrow. Parts of it will not.
It's our understanding, based on what we've read so far, that some of the more controversial pieces -- the ones stuff the national media has focused on are some of those that have been halted temporarily while she decides. Specifically, so that you understand, whether you can stop, detain and arrest people -- whether law enforcement can stop, detain, arrest certain people and ask for their papers; whether people are required to carry papers with them when they're out and about, if they're immigrants to this country.
Now, there are 12 sections to this law. Some that relate to things like it's illegal to transport an illegal immigrant, allowing law enforcement officers to impound an illegal immigrant's car. We believe those sorts of things, for example, could go into effect. I have to read the law to be certain, the ruling, to be certain.
But, so, you see, some pieces of it will. Some pieces of it won't. We'll go through with the fine-tooth comb to let our viewers know.
The politics of it, bottom line, T.J., are that Arizonans are already very angry with the federal government for not enforcing the border laws, for allowing so many illegals into the country. The majority of Arizonans are so angry, that's why they supported the law.
So, I suspect this will turn up the heat on the rage. I just came from an interview with the man who sponsored S.B. 1070, this very law, State Senator Russell Pearce. And he said he's absolutely confident they are going to appeal. They will appeal if the judge overturns any piece of it. And he's confident that the Supreme Court will uphold S.B. 1070 and he wants to see it repeated in states throughout this country -- T.J.
HOLMES: All right. Jessica, I'm going to let a lawyer hop onto coverage right now.
Our Jeffrey Toobin is standing by.
Jeffrey, I'm not sure how fast and furiously you have been reading this ruling by the judge -- but what did she decide to do here?
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST (via telephone): Well, I think, Jessica had it right. She said --the judge said that certain provisions of the law are likely to be held unconstitutional and the judge has disallowed those from going into effect. But parts of the law she has approved.
The most controversial part of the law, which is the duty thrust upon Arizona law enforcement officials to determine whether immigrants or people who are reasonably suspected of being illegal are, in fact, illegal, that has been struck down at least temporarily. The law -- she said that the requirement of law enforcement officials to essentially make all possibly illegal immigrants show their papers is a violation of the separation of powers, is a violation of federal sovereignty, federal control of immigration matters. That was the argument that was put forth by the Obama administration.
Many civil rights group argued that this law was simply discriminatory towards Hispanics. She -- the judge -- she did not reach those arguments. She struck down the law on the ground that it was a violation of the federal control of immigration matters. And that's why the controversial provision, at least for the time being, will not go into effect.
HOLMES: For the time being, this is -- this preliminary injunction. But something else you said that kind of stood out to me, that it sounds like she is making an assumption that this thing would be struck down, down the road anyway. So what happens now? A preliminary injunction, but where do we go from here in this legal fight about those key provisions?
TOOBIN: Well, some of it has to do with the legal strategy followed by the state of Arizona here. The state of Arizona could ask the judge to revisit the issue after fuller fact finding. They could also go directly to the court of appeals, which is the next rung up in the federal court structure.
Frankly, I think this is a case very much destined for United States Supreme Court. It is the kind of big issue relating to the responsibilities of state versus federal government on a very important matter. It's likely, given how much attention this law received that other states will be passing similar laws. I think the Supreme Court is going to get involved probably next year.
The issue that's up in the air is will the law be in effect while the appeals process goes forward? At the moment the answer is no, at least this one provision will not be in effect, but certainly an appeals process will begin if not immediately, then soon. And I think this will wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court.
HOLMES: But the ball right now is totally in the state of Arizona's court?
TOOBIN: It is, because they are the losing party here. They have to decide whether they want Susan Bolton, who is the Clinton- appointed judge who made this decision, to revisit it, to get more facts or are they going to appeal to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is the court of appeals that includes Arizona, and get if the appeals process going. That's a matter of legal strategy that the Arizona lawyers are going to have to decide.
Now one of the complexities here is that usually the lawyers for the state of Arizona are the Arizona attorney general's office. But the Arizona attorney general is running as a democrat against Jan Brewer. So he has taken himself out of the case. So it's actually private lawyers who are representing Arizona in this case.
HOLMES: All right, and I'm going to head to our Jeanne Meserve. Jeanne, I'm coming to you in just a second, but one more thing to you here, if I can, Jeffrey. What do you know about this judge, Susan Bolton?
TOOBIN: She's a well respected judge. She's a Clinton appointee so she's more democratic in her orientation than certainly George Bush-nominated judges.
But -- and I have to say on a matter of just sort of pure judging, I think it would have been for all concerned had she released this decision a few days earlier because, you know, she could have spared the state a little bit of chaos. It's a very lengthy opinion, but she could have done it a couple days earlier that I think it would have been better for all concerned.
But it's a scholarly thoughtful opinion, but there will certainly be lots of people who disagree with it and it will be very closely scrutinized on appeal.
HOLMES: All right, Jeffrey Toobin, I know you're not going too far away, our chief legal analyst here helping us breakdown what is happening to our viewers.
If you're just joining us, the Arizona immigration law, the controversial law and the most controversial part of it won't go into effect tomorrow because a judge has stepped in and has issued a preliminary injunction of some of the law. Scheduled to go into effect tomorrow, but struck down the most controversial part -- shouldn't say "struck down," but at least issued an injunction in that most controversial part that allows, some would say, for racial profiling. That part will not go into effect tomorrow like the bill was scheduled to go into effect.
Our Jeanne Meserve, who has been reading as quickly as she can.
Jeanne, hello to you once again. What have you been able to pluck out of this thing?
MESERVE: Well, T.J., some of the judge's thinking, on page 16 of this decision she writes the following, requiring law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who was arrested burdens lawfully present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked. Given the large number of people who are technically arrested but never booked to jail or perhaps even transported to a law enforcement facility, detention time for this category of arrestee will certainly be extended during an immigration status verification.
And then she does grant injunction on that controversial provision that we've talked about that would allow law enforcement officers to check immigration status if they have stopped people for other reasons.
Also, some of the other provisions that she has granted an injunction against -- the provision of the law that would make it a crime to carry alien registration papers; that it is a crime for an unauthorized alien to solicit, apply for or perform work; and authorizing the warrantless arrest for a person where there's probable cause to believe the person has committed an public offense that makes them removable from the U.S.
But the judge wasn't universally endorsing the government's approach here, which was, as you've heard repeatedly here now that this Arizona law preempted federal law. She also wrote in her decision, applying the proper legal standards based upon well- established precedent, the court finds the United States is not likely to succeed on the merits in showing parts of the law are preempted by federal law. And therefore she did not enjoin some of the less controversial provisions of this Arizona law, T.J.
And as to your earlier question, what does this do to the earlier other lawsuits filed that have been filed about this law, this decision today only relates to the federal lawsuit. It doesn't relate to the other lawsuits brought by, you know, a Phoenix police officer, by civil rights groups and the like.
HOLMES: That's an important note to make there, Jeanne. And I think you still have your notes there in your hand. I want to go back through because we've been talking about h controversial provision, the one that allows officers to check the immigration status of someone they believe has committed another crime. But you say there are several other provisions besides that one that are also -- that this judge is also putting a temporary hold on.
Can you tell me those one more time?
MESERVE: Yes, that the provision that would have made it a crime not to carry alien registration papers, she's put an injunction on that. Also, making it a crime for an unauthorized alien to solicit, apply for or perform work. And the final one, authorizing the warrantless arrest of a person where there's probable cause to believe they've committed a public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.
HOLMES: All right, so some key provisions there as well besides this controversial one.
Jeanne Meserve, I know you'll continue to go through this thing. We do appreciate you reading as quickly as you have been for us during this coverage.
Christina (ph), you said something in my ear. What was that?
All right. Again, to our viewers. Here -- again to our viewers if you are just joining us, we are getting the news now. Just got in just a few minutes ago that in fact that controversial part -- the controversial part you've been hearing so much about in this Arizona immigration bill is not, in fact, going to go into effect tomorrow.
Alfonso Aguilar is on the phone with us. He's a former chief of the U.S. Office of Citizenship, he is on the line with us now. Alfonso, tell me, what do you think of the judge's ruling?
ALFONSO AGUILAR, FORMER CHIEF, U.S. OFFICE OF CITIZENSHIP (via telephone): I must say, I haven't read the decision yet, but it doesn't surprise me. Immigration after all is a federal issue, and that's what the administration argued in court, based on the preemption clause that immigration is an issue reserved in the constitution for the federal government.
However, this is -- what they argued in court is in contrast with what they have argued publicly, that the law would lead to massive discrimination. I don't believe the law would have led to massive discrimination but certainly, I think the Obama administration used this lawsuit to insert an element of racial confrontation as we move forward towards the midterm elections recognizing that the Obama administration, that Obama hasn't done anything on immigration as he promised the Latino community.
HOLMES: Well, sir, I guess you're making a political accusation there against the Obama administration in challenging this law in the first place. But a lot of people are concerned about this law on the surface. And no matter what your political leanings may be, anyone out there, a lot of people have an opinion about this. We have polling that shows a lot of people in the country are in favor of a law like this, in fact.
But what does it say to you now that a judge stepped? Are you happy with this at least taking place? Do we need more time to think this thing through?
AGUILAR: Again, currently, I'm the executive director of the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles. We came out opposing the Arizona law. I think it's unfair because it criminalizes undocumented immigrants. And yes, I would agree with the judge's decision.
But I want to put this in perspective. This is not just a mere legal issue. The Obama administration's move to defy the lawsuit was a political move and we have to be very objective about that when we discuss this whole issue.
Now, in terms of the legal merits, I would agree with the legal decision, but it's not because it would lead to massive discrimination, but because this is a federal issue and the federal government must act. So rather than just focusing on the Arizona law, I would want President Obama and the democratic leadership in the House and Senate to do something on immigration and they haven't.
HOLMES: Well, dir, you think the political move on behalf, as you say, a political move by the Obama administration, do you think politics on this whole issue has just been one sided? A lot of people accuse Governor Jan Brewer and many others in her state of bringing this up, quite frankly, to stir things up.
AGUILAR: No. Not at all. I think the point that they're trying to make is they want to see the federal government act. I think, like the rest of the American people, you've seen the polls, over 70 percent of Americans support the Arizona law, but at the same time a very large margin or majority of Americans want to see some sort of immigration reform. So I think that was the message that the governor of Arizona was sending the Obama administration.
HOLMES: All right, so again, Alfonso Aguilar on the line with us. Sir, we appreciate you hopping on the line here with us. Don't go too far away, we'll probably be checking in with you plenty in this whole debate.
The debate which of course now we know is not going to end any time soon. We didn't expect it to, but still we told you at the top of the hour that something was going to happen in the next moments, minutes or possibly in the next hours because, in fact, the law was scheduled to go into effect tomorrow. The law will now not go into effect in its form as it was passed by the Arizona legislature and as it was signed by Governor Brewer because now a judge has in fact struck down part of the Arizona law. A temporary or a preliminary injunction on the key provisions.
The key provisions being those you've heard so much about. The law required people in Arizona -- require the law enforcement of Arizona to, in fact, ask people about their immigration status if they came into contact with them and were accusing them of some other type of criminal violation. If someone is stopped, if someone is arrested, then in fact law enforcement is required to ask them object their immigration status. That was the most controversial part that so many people thought would lead to racial profiling.
So many groups around the country have filed lawsuits challenging the law. From Tucson, a police officer, he filed suit. A Phoenix police officer, he filed suit. The federal government filed suit not because of the issue of racial profiling, but because they said you cannot preempt federal law. And they say Arizona's immigration, no matter what problems there may be, the responsibility to handle federal immigration law in this country, to handle immigration law in the country, that falls strictly on behalf of the federal government. States, you can't do it. That is what the government sued over, and right now the government has initially won that case.
The ruling that we're getting today, according to our Jeanne Meserve, this ruling that I have in my hand, only applies to the federal government's case. They we're challenging the law saying that it's our responsibility, the federal government, not the states. You can't do this on your own. If so, we would have just a mish-mosh. Every state would have their own immigration law. You can't do that.
So right now the judge, Susan Bolton, has ruled temporarily at least that some of the provisions, the most controversial ones, should not go into place. We have her picture, we can put that back up, I saw you guys just had it there. But her name is Susan Bolton. This is the judge who has been hearing all of these cases. She said ahead of time, I am not going to be on any kind of timeline. I know the law goes into effect on the 29th, but she said she in fact was not going to rush. She wasn't going to be forced.
She also said it's possible I could rule parts of the law should go into effect and others should not, and that turns out to be exactly what she has done. Susan Bolton, as you see there, in this particular ruling we just got, 36 pages that Jeanne Meserve and others have been going through, now in fact that several of these provisions have been struck down, temporarily, again. A preliminary injunction, I should say.
Our Jeanne Meserve, again, has been reading this thing for us and helping us through it. Several provisions, we've talked about the most controversial one, Jeanne, but several provisions have been or will not go into effect tomorrow. What else are you picking up from these 36 pages?
MESERVE: Well, T.J., first word from the White House the president will not be making any comment on this ruling. We are expecting some reaction from elsewhere in the federal government, possibly from the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security; but as of yet, we have nothing. We suspect that, like us, they are wading through this decision and parsing it and figuring out exactly what it will mean.
You're right about what the federal government argued. They said immigration enforcement is our job, and if every state were to pass its own legislation we would have a patchwork system all across the United States which would simply be unworkable. The judge bought that to a certain degree and so certain provisions of this law have been blocked. But those that have not been blocked are the areas where she thought the preemption argument simply wasn't going to stand up.
Now as has been mentioned, there are plenty of other lawsuits that have been brought in regard to this law. They looked at other pieces of it and argued against it in other ways. For instance, there's a lawsuit by a coalition of civil rights groups which says this is tantamount to racial profiling. That that's what it will result in. There also was a Phoenix police officer who brought suit and said, hey, listen, I'm afraid if I enforce this I'm going to be sued.
So there's a lot of court action still to come on this law, not only in regards to specific federal case, but some of the other lawsuits that have been brought since this law was passed.
HOLMES: Yes, and again, like you said there, Jeanne, some other lawsuits still, I assume, have to still be ruled on, but I can't imagine it would change much. The judge here has ruled, it sounds like this thing will not go into effect. So the others, I mean, what else could we get from suits possibly from the other lawsuits, any other rulings that would change what this one ruling has already done?
MESERVE: Well, I'm no lawyer. Let me preface by saying that and so I can't give you the intricate specifics of this. But as I understand it, there may be things in this suit, in this decision that may have impact on those other lawsuits. And it may be that the lawyers involved in that other litigation is going through this, reading this, saying how is this going to impact my case and it may prompt them to take some other action.
But as I -- again, let me caution again, I'm not the lawyer. Go back to Mr. Toobin for those questions.
HOLMES: I know, Jeanne, you're not a lawyer, but you certainly do play a good one on TV.
We're going to take a break, let you continue to read through that thing. But again, the highlight here, folks, the breaking news we are just getting is that, in fact, the controversial provisions of the controversial Arizona immigration law not going into effect tomorrow as scheduled.
Quick break, we're right back.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
HOLMES: All right, the breaking news -- parts of the controversial Arizona immigration law will not go into effect. The entire bill, the entire law that was passed by the Arizona legislature earlier this year, signed by the governor in April, scheduled the to go into effect tomorrow on the 29th, well, parts of it will, parts of it will not. And the parts that won't are the controversial parts you have been hearing about, the parts that require law enforcement officers to ask someone they arrest, ask them to prove that they are in the country legally. That key provision will not go into effect.
You see the ruling there. It's 36 pages. It comes for the judge Susan Bolton out in Phoenix who has been hearing so many of these lawsuits, seven have been challenging the Arizona immigration law. The one she ruled on, however, is the one that the Obama administration, the Justice Department brought that was challenging the law on the merits that, hey, immigration enforcement is the federal government's job. That is not a state job. So the judge has issued this injunction.
Let me bring in our Jeffrey Toobin. Jeffrey, help me with the key phrasing here. Am I saying this right, a preliminary injunction?
TOOBIN: Yes, you are. That's the law. And all an injunction means is it's an in order. It says to the state of Arizona, you may not. You may not enforce this law. You may not stop anyone. You may not do what this law commands you to do because the law is, in effect, nullified unless another court comes forward and tells you otherwise.
So the most controversial part of the law, the show me your papers part of the law, that's not in effect starting tomorrow, although other parts of the law are.
HOLMES: OK, what is Arizona -- what can they do now? What can the state do, since we talked a moment ago and said it's in their court now?
TOOBIN: There are basically two options. One is to go back to judge Susan Bolton and say that you need to look at this issue further, we need to have a trial, we need to have more fact-finding to show that, in fact, this law is constitutional. That's one option.
The other option is simply to take Susan Bolton's order and go to the court of appeals that covers the state of Arizona and say, Judge Bolton made a mistake, her order needs to be overturned and the law should go into effect. Frankly, I think it's more likely that they will go to the court of appeals, not go to the -- go back to the judge.
This is an issue that I think really does cry out for the United States Supreme Court to get involved ultimately because it is so important, it deals with such fundamental issues of constitutional law and is likely to recur in other states because this law, while legally controversial, as you've pointed out, is politically popular. So other states may well replicate it and I think the Supreme Court really does need to step in and decide once and for all whether it's legal.
HOLMES: But how long before we could possibly get to that step, Jeffrey, since I assume hearing from Arizona officials and the governor Jan Brewer and those in support of the law, I can't imagine they would throw their hands up and say, OK, we lost, we give up, we're not going to keep fighting. I assume the fight continues and you said likely the court of appeals. How long before we could see the Supreme Court taking something like this up?
TOOBIN: Well, certainly the court of appeals could act very quickly. I'm sure many people remember the controversy over whether the Obama administration could order the offshore wells shutdown, the 33 wells shutdown moratorium. That was appealed within a matter of days, and there was a decision in about a week. So when the courts want to, they can move fast. And certainly, I think the court of appeals could get involved and even resolve this case very quickly.
The Supreme Court's another story. They move at a more stately pace. I think -- you know, they are in their summer recess. They probably would not take this up until the first Monday in October at the earliest, but they can move quickly.
HOLMES: Move at a stately pace, I like the way you put that diplomatically there, Jeffrey.
Also we heard from our Jeanne Meserve who was reporting a moment ago that, in fact, you know, this ruling applies just to the case that the Justice Department brought. So what happens now to those other six cases -- the other six suits brought challenging this law?
TOOBIN: Well I wouldn't worry too much as a practical matter about these other lawsuits. This is the lawsuit, this is the one that matters. I don't anticipate that this judge, having heard such extensive arguments, having written such a lengthy opinion, is going to revisit those issues in any serious substantial way in these other lawsuits.
So I think we have seen what this one judge feels about this law and we have read her ruling. So she may be right, she may be wrong, but I don't think she's going to be changing her mind in any further lawsuits. This is the case on this law.
HOLMES: And we're showing the picture here once again of the judge, Judge Susan Bolton. And you were giving me a little color a little earlier about her. But, again, for those of us who don't know her at all beyond the name, Susan Bolton, and many people around the country have been hearing it the past week or so because she's been hearing these cases, who is this lady?
TOOBIN: She is a judge, has been a judge now for quite some time, she was appointed by President Bill Clinton. She is not known as a particularly politically oriented judge. Yes, she is a democrat. She was appointed by a democratic president.
And judges don't like to admit this, but it is true that there are differences by and large, with some exceptions but certainly most of the time, on these very hot-button political issues, whether it's immigration, whether it's gun control, whether it's abortion, you are going to often see different results from a democratic judge than from a republican-pointed judge.
As a democratically appointed judge, I don't mean to suggest that they are acting inappropriately or not paying attention to the law, but these are very hard, controversial issues and the fact that she is a democrat, I think, turns out to be quite important.
HOLMES: All right, Jeffrey, don't go far. We have a take a quick break here, but Jeffrey Toobin, our legal analyst who's been along and has been along for this entire back and forth we've seen several months now of this controversial Arizona immigration law.
We now have a ruling from a judge, but that doesn't mean this thing is over any time soon. A judge has now ruled parts of the law -- the key, most controversial parts -- will not go into effect as scheduled tomorrow. Our coverage continues with our Jeffrey Toobin and other members of our team who are right now still picking through the ruling with a fine-tooth comb.
Our coverage continues after a quick break. Stay here.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
