US appeals court upholds Texas law targeting sanctuary cities

[AustinN4]

US appeals court upholds Texas law targeting sanctuary cities
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/1...lds-texas-law-targeting-sanctuary-cities.html

In a new ruling, a federal appeals court has upheld most of Texas law targeting sanctuary cities in what some are calling the toughest state-level immigration measure in the country.

Tuesday’s ruling by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans allows police officers in Texas to ask people their immigration status during routine stops.

It also threatens officials with jail time for not cooperating with federal immigration authorities.

Republican Gov. Greg Abbott quickly took to Twitter to announce that the “law is in effect” and that “allegations of discrimination were rejected.”

 

[BRD@66]

Suits me.

 

[Charlie]

Seems reasonable to me, also.

 

[AustinN4]

Unfortunately, it will probably need to go all the way the the SC before any enforcement can start.

 

[busykngt]

Unfortunately, it will probably need to go all the way the the SC before any enforcement can start.

Doubtful, since there’s no guarantee the SCOTUS will even agree to hear it.

 

[AustinN4]

Doubtful, since there’s no guarantee the SCOTUS will even agree to hear it.

It has to go there before they can turn it down.

 

[busykngt]

It has to go there before they can turn it down.

“go there”
Go where? To the SCOTUS? Going there is no assurance the Justices will even agree to hear the case (they pick & choose what cases they want to hear). And when they don’t pick a case, the lower court’s judgment stays in place. The law isn’t “put on hold” waiting to see if the Justices will agree to hear an appeal.

“before they”
Who is they?

 

[easy rider]

Well, I don't about anyone else, but this makes me feel a little more separated from California. Imagine that, we need a law saying we can't break the law.

 

[AustinN4]

“go there”
Go where? To the SCOTUS? Going there is no assurance the Justices will even agree to hear the case (they pick & choose what cases they want to hear). And when they don’t pick a case, the lower court’s judgment stays in place. The law isn’t “put on hold” waiting to see if the Justices will agree to hear an appeal.

“before they”
Who is they?

If the appeals process continues all the way to SCoUS, then they pick and choose what they are going to hear or not, but not before, UIAM. It may or may not get appealed all the way there; hence, it has to get here before they decide if they are going to hear it or not.

 

[busykngt]

What do you mean, “it has to get here”?
It’s already here - this was a Texas case. There’s nowhere else for the case to go on appeal, except to the SCOTUS. And if they don’t agree to hear it, the law is what it is. (Which was the intent of my original comment - the odds are statistically overwhelming against the SCOTUS agreeing to hear it. I saw during their last session something like 4800 cases where seeking SCOTUS review and they typically handle about 70-80 cases per session).

Two main concerns drive their choice as to what cases they agree to hear. First, intellectual considerations in judging the constitutionality of a law and secondly, where US District counts having issued conflicting opinions across the county.

 

[AustinN4]

It’s already here - this was a Texas case. There’s nowhere else for the case to go on appeal, except to the SCOTUS.

And, that was what I said, albeit in a fewer words.

AFAIK, the case goes nowhere unless the Appeals Court verdict is itself appealed. If not, the Appeals Court rule stands and the case does not go to SCOTUS; i.e., it has to get there first.

If it is appealed, then SCOTUS will decide if they want to hear it or not.

 

[busykngt]

Unfortunately, it will probably need to go all the way the the SC before any enforcement can start.

What I was questioning was your comment about when “enforcement” would start. Enforcement can/will start now. If it is appealed to the SCOTUS, a separate suit would have to be brought to get an injunction to stop its enforcement (which may or may not be successful).

And to go with your idea that enforcement will take the delayed path, I suppose the good news in all this is, it wouldn’t be delayed too long (especially if they don’t agree to hear the case). The injunction would be relatively short lived (perhaps a year, give or take).

 

[AustinN4]

What I was questioning was your comment about when “enforcement” would start. Enforcement can/will start now. If it is appealed to the SCOTUS, a separate suit would have to be brought to get an injunction to stop its enforcement (which may or may not be successful).

OK, now what you are saying (but not before), and agree.