The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Arizona’s appeal of a lower court ruling on the state’s “harboring” law. The 9th U.S. Court of Appeals had blocked implementation of the measure, which made it a state crime to knowingly harbor or transport illegal aliens.

The “harboring” law was enacted in 2010 as part of SB 1070. The Supreme Court in 2012 invalidated a few provisions of SB 1070 but did not address its harboring provisions. A coalition of illegal-alien advocacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Immigration Law Center and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, sued to obtain an injunction against the measure.

Judge Susan Bolton of the U.S. District Court in Phoenix issued an injunction in 2012 to keep the law from being enforced while the question was litigated. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that injunction. The case now returns to Bolton for further consideration.

Read more here.

supreme court
state policies
Illegal Immigration

Updated: Thu, Apr 24th 2014 @ 1:58pm EDT

Terri 9170 of IL's picture

What seems crazy to me about this is it's already against the law in the U. S. Code. So just because Obama chooses not to enforce the law, does that make the federal law illegal? Totally bizarre.
Seems like a no-brainer for the court. Just refer to what IS the law. Guess that's too damaging to the cheap labor faction and the ABSOLUTE POWER FOR DEMOCRATS faction.

Gene 5798 of TX's picture

Terri, I am not an attorney,I do not kniw but it occurs to me to ask, of anyone that may know, would employing an alien be considered harboring in legal terms? I ask because I think the Supreme's are a majority of Republican appointees, I think they are,and if would put a brake on cheap labor. Interesting question, sometimes I wish I were a lawyer,... might have wound up a judge with too many opinions, LOL

Gene 5798 of TX's picture

Thanks. Van. For me, no further explanation needed. Roberts has always voted in favor of republicans. Sorrowful, but not uncommon from either party on the court/

Hey, can I hang out my shingle, naw, bad idea.

Terri 9170 of IL's picture

Gene, that's not quite true. He has handed down some moderate decisions. I'm not sure anymore if there's a preponderance of conservatives on the Court. Sometimes Scalia even surprises us with his moderation. I think right now the Supremes aren't hearing anything too controversial because it's an election year.

Gene 5798 of TX's picture

When I call something wrong, thanks for calling me on it Terri. However, procrastination and complacency during an election year is what Congress does, too. I do not like that, it confuses voters, I think. Often springs disappointing resulets,

Robert 4907 of DE's picture

Just goes to show you that the ACLU, )Alien Civil Liberty Union), loves the illegal aliens. This the perfect example why we need comprehensive ENFORCEMENT reform. Something has to put an end to the DISGRACEFUL aclu and these DISGRACEFUK groups like la raza, casa and others who want amnesty for the illegal aliens. I'm sick of them all!

Van 0864 of VA's picture

They declined the case without comment, something that often happens. Judge Bolton granted the plantiffs' request for injunctive relief because she suspected Arizona's law was preempted by federal law. She will now hold further hearings and issue a decision

Van 0864 of VA's picture

It does concur with federal law but Judge Bolton is saying federal law preempts Arizona's ability to create a state crime for the same offense.

Terri 9170 of IL's picture

I think they don't want to hear it because they'd have to rule against Obama and it's an election year so they don't want to hurt the Democrats or the RINOs.

GlenR 1973 of WV's picture

Correct, political contributors hold the power on the issue of ILLEGALS while the "leadership" of both major parties will dance for their "contributions".

Terri 9170 of IL's picture

Gene, the absolute craziest opinions from the Court have been that foreigners can contribute to U. S. election campaigns because it's their "right of free speech," and that persons (the legal definition of corporations) can give as much money as they want. Why not just hang out a sign of all the federal buildings in D. C. that says "The Best Government Money Can Buy?"
Princeton University and a few other Ivy Leagues have done a study on how much democracy really exists in the U. S. They've concluded we're not a democracy; we're a Plutocracy. I find it interesting that they even decided to do this study and publicize the conclusions.

Show More
Show Less
Tracy 5631 of CA's picture

Laws are for a reason. All countries gave laws. We are the only country with the illegal migration of 70 to 80 million not documented in the USA. They are being exploited by big business for profits. Read the status. Amnesty was given in 1986. Veteran's homeless sleeping outside on

Gary 3222 of AL's picture

Seems like the rule of law in America does not exist anymore. We need 250,000 volunteers on the border to enforce Article Four Section 4 US constitution.

Philip 5927 of AZ's picture

It is just another disappointing news. Nothing new about it! This is NOT the first time I've heard that SCOTUS was rejecting a case that is related to illegal aliens. They do it over and over. (Remember that they quickly rejected a group of out of state American citizens' lawsuit after they complained that CA law unlawfully discriminated against them who pay higher in favor of illegal aliens who pay in-state college tuition, but unfortunately, SCOTUS decided to honor CA's new law for in-state college tuition for illegal aliens that is now very, very unpopular in CA.) SCOTUS knows that AZ has evidence that would support that claim. I believe they are afraid AZ's testimony would expose fraudulent Obama administration. In so many ways, lawless Obama administration is undoubtedly the worst thing that ever happened to this country. SCOTUS is the worst ever. We need a replacement for some of these judges including Sotomayer who was involved in La Raza and Kagan who was solicitor general and represented Obama many times. I protest against SCOTUS's bad decision because they fail their duty to protect our country's security interests.

Show More
Show Less
Florence 0183 of NJ's picture

Supremes lean towards illegals; Soto Mayer never should have been approved and they should not have life terms, that is the killer...

Brett 6588 of CA's picture

Amazing, but the only politician with enough spine to discuss this issue is Jeff Sessions. Everyone else (regardless of party) seem to either embrace amnesty, accept it as inevitable or refuse to publicly discuss the issue at all.

None 2150 of WY's picture

My, my, my, what a tangled web we live in. They have to be kidding?
Where is the back up for this vet and his wife at. This country is getting to the point that we all should move to mexico or another country and take it over. See how they like it.

There has be a better way. This is rotten to core. Thanks to all illegal activist. Hey, you politicians and illegal activist could help by letting him stay at your home. What a great idea?

By the way, what if, I say what if, we did allow the kids to stay. What would happen to all the relatives of the illegals? Catch 22 again!

Show More
Show Less
Aaron 8129 of ID's picture

When I first the video about this vet it made my blood boil with anger. It sounds like the plot of "Pacific Heights" only worse than that movie. A similar situation happened in this movie.

Mike 1111 of CO's picture

NumbersUSA, please, do a follow up to this story, when you feel it's appropriate.

I thought that it was already against the law to harbor someone else who is breaking the law, making you an accomplice: felony ? misdemeanor ?

At any rate, it's more than a parking ticket.

Appellate court decision makes no sense.

Van 0864 of VA's picture

Yes, we'll cover the continuing court debate. Again, the point is, Judge Bolton said Arizona's criminal penalty for harboring is potentially unconstitutional. It may be preempted by federal law. She issued an injunction on that basis which the appellate court upheld. The US Supreme Court decided not to weigh in so now the case is back with Judge Bolton

Mike 1111 of CO's picture

Van, thanks. What is the federal penalty for harboring that may (or may not) preempt the AZ criminal harboring penalty ? Just curious.

Mike 1111 of CO's picture

So, Obama is violating 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv): "encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law"
"shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B)(iv) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) resulting in the death of any person, be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined under title 18, or both."

There have already been deaths caused by Obama's encouragement/inducement of Illegals.

So, what are we waiting for ???

Show More
Show Less
None 2150 of WY's picture

We best not hold or breath! Sad to say, he worthless and does what he wants to do when he feels like it. He has to removed from that office.

Gene 5798 of TX's picture

Harboring, is not the nation guilty of that by allowing illegal aliens to remain in the country? Certainly, I believe that would be true, since 1986 all Presidents and Congresspeople that served from that time to now are for not enforcing VERY VIGOROUSLY existing immigration law, including total deportation of aliens!!!

J R 0939 of TX's picture

When I came back to TX from Las Vegas and went to get my license reissued I had to surrender the NV license I had gotten and still provide 2 more forms of acceptable ID which were a birth certificate and DD-214. I had only been gone 6 months was the funny part.
How is an illegal going to prove who they are to get theirs?

None 2150 of WY's picture

Sad to say, pandering is king in B.O.'s pretend kingdom. He's joke, but he's not funny!

Excellent comment J.R. and real!

The question is, how do we enforce our laws if B.O. and his cronies don't care too?

GlenR 1973 of WV's picture

I was at a Federal Office in Houston about 16 years ago and attempted to us my DD-214 as one of the several ID's to secure some paper work and the Federal representative claimed that he did not know anything about the DD-214, the person had to be at least in his early 40's, your Federal dollars at work. He did make a call and accepted the DD-214.