US Federal District Court Judge Susan Bolton has injoined (legal term meaning prohibited, prevented, or stopped) four sections of the Arizona Immigration Law from going into effect. While this may seem like a blow to the legislation, it is actually a boost to the heart and meaning of the bill.

The US District Court has ruled on the preemption aspect of the bill, not the regulations on immigrants. A law is “preempted” when a state attempts to pass a law that the federal government has already passed, or pass legislation in an area that the federal government has already regulated. Judge Bolton stated “[p]reserving the status quo through a preliminary injunction is less harmful than allowing state laws that are likely pre-empted by federal law to be enforced.” The Court did not rule on the constitutionality of immigration laws, as a whole, that cover such areas; the Court has ruled on Arizona’s laws that overlap with federal rules, laws, and regulations. The federal government already has the exact same laws in place that Arizona’s legislature recently passed. In the ruling,

A quick summary of the federal government’s policy on immigration can be found on Cornell University Law School’s website.

The loudest opponents of this bill have screamed “racism” (please see my previous article on this; man I love continuity almost as much as shameless self promotion) and are now celebrating a major victory. What these people don’t know is that their argument has been heard, considered, and summarily rejected. These opponents claim that the requirements of the AZ law are unconstitutional, when in fact, the federal government has had the very same laws on the books for decades. The government isn’t upset that the bill has been passed, the government is upset that a state is trying to pick up the federal government’s slack. This is more a case of big brother being upset that little brother has done his chores. Think of it like this: you are attending a state fair, and you only have five tickets. You have carefully budgeted how you will spend these tickets because you really, really, really wanted to ride the big shiny thing you have watched the workers construct for a week. Just as you reach the ride operator, you hand him your ride ticket, but your little brother grabs the ticket, hands it to the operator, and away he goes on the ride that you have paid for. The immigration situation is not so different. The federal government has to pay for the majority of immigration doctrines, procedures, institutions, and infrastructure. For these systems to exist, they require funding; funding which comes from the federal government. The federal government makes the laws that involve the systems that it created and funds, and it does not want the states meddling in areas which have been established with a particular infrastructure and funding in mind. Another analogy: you don’t want someone else spending money from a checking account that you manage when that spender has no idea what the balance looks like, do you?

While it’s a loss on the day for Arizona, it’s a victory for the purpose of the bill. For now, the “illegal” in illegal immigrant still classifies these crossing our borders without proper clearance and certification as criminals, but stay tuned for the left to attack that next.

Then again, opponents of the bill didn’t read those measly ten pages, so I’m making a rather large assumption that they will read the District Court’s ruling. Silly me.

If you would like to read the opinion for yourself (and spare some snide comments from myself) you may do so here. Credit goes to Gavel Grab and The Blog of Legal Times for the link to the ruling.