USA v. State of Arizona, et al

Filing 189

Filed (ECF) Amicus Curiae County of Santa Clara citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 11/04/2010. [7535450] (GSH)

Download PDF
USA v. State of Arizona, et al Doc. 189 OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 70 West Hedding Street, 9th Floor San Jose, California 95110-1770 (408) 299-5900 (408) 292-7240 (FAX) Miguel Márquez COUNTY COUNSEL Winifred Botha Orry P. Korb Lori E. Pegg ASSISTANT COUNTY COUNSEL November 4, 2010 Molly Dwyer, Clerk of Court U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit P.O. Box 193939 San Francisco, CA 94119-3939 Re: United States of America v. State of Arizona et al., Case No. 10-16645 (Judges Noonan, Paez, and Bea) Dear Ms. Dwyer: As counsel for amicus curiae the County of Santa Clara, California ("County"), in the above-referenced case, we are writing on behalf of the County to advise the Court of directly relevant authority on an important issue that arose during oral argument. Because this issue bears directly on the concerns raised by the County and our fellow local government amici that are responsible for funding, operating, and overseeing local law enforcement agencies, the County respectfully submits this supplemental letter in order to draw the Court's attention to important authority not cited by the parties. Specifically, the parties' discussion at argument of Sections 2(B) and 6 of SB 1070 failed to address this Court's decision in Gonzales v. City of Peoria, 722 F.2d 468, 474-76 (9th Cir. 1983), overruled on other grounds, Hodgers-Durgin v. de la Vina, 199 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 1999), and other authorities that reject or cast grave doubt on the authority of state and local law enforcement to enforce the civil provisions of federal immigration law. This Court has never held that state and local officers may enforce civil immigration law without specific authorization from Congress. To the contrary, the Court has drawn a firm line between enforcement of criminal and civil immigration laws by state and local police and has approved only enforcement of federal criminal immigration law. See Gonzales, 722 F.2d at 474-76. In response to the Court's questions about state and local authority to enforce immigration law, neither party noted this distinction. See generally Recording of Nov. 1, 2010 oral argument at 22:30-26:30 (argument for Defendants-Appellants); id. at 57:00-60:00 (argument for Plaintiff-Appellee). Amici in this case, however, have raised this issue. See generally Br. Amicus Curiae of Friendly House Plaintiffs at 17-23 (presenting authority from the Ninth Circuit and several sister Circuits distinguishing between enforcement of civil and criminal Letter to Ms. Molly Dwyer, Clerk of the Court Re: United States of America v. State of Arizona et al. Date: November 4, 2010 Page 2 immigration law by state and local officers, as well as federal statutes and legislative history demonstrating that state and local officials have neither inherent authority nor blanket delegated authority to enforce federal civil immigration law). In light of the public safety considerations described in our amicus brief, the County respectfully requests that the Court avoid adopting a new, permissive view of local governments' role in enforcement of civil as opposed to criminal immigration law. To do so is not necessary in this case and would destabilize the settled expectations of municipalities and individuals in states within this Circuit. Respectfully submitted, MIGUEL MÁRQUEZ County Counsel By: /S/ . GRETA HANSEN Acting Lead Deputy County Counsel /S/ ANJALI BHARGAVA Deputy County Counsel Attorneys for Amicus Curiae The County of Santa Clara, California .

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?