Supreme Court Year in Review

The court did hold that it was premature to invalidate the fourth provision at issue.?This part of the law does two things:? 1) It requires state officials to determine the immigration status of any person they stop on some other legitimate basis (if they have reason to suspect the person is in the country unlawfully), and 2) It requires that the police must have the person?s immigration status determined before the person is released.?The court did not pass final?judgment on the first part, the mandatory status check.?And it strongly indicates that the second part would be unconstitutional if it were read to allow prolonged detention.??Detaining individuals solely to verify their immigration status would raise constitutional concerns,? the court says.?And if?if?the the provision ?only requires state officers to conduct a status check during the course of an authorized, lawful detention or after a detainee has been released, the provision likely would survive preemption??? ?Likely would??if read and enforced by the Arizona authorities in this more benign way.?At least ?absent some showing? of other adverse consequences.?And subject to further civil rights challenges.? Rather than uphold this provision, the court notes that ?the nature and timing of this case counsel caution in evaluating [its] validity? because the law has not gone into effect and there is thus uncertainty about ?what the law means and how it will be enforced.??

khloe and lamar oklahoma city thunder act rajon rondo sunoco titanic ii babe ruth