Georgia Fed judges grapple with Ga., Ala. immigration laws Panel won't rule until U.S. Supreme Court releases decision on Arizona law

By Greg Bluestein and Kate Brumback Associated Press ATLANTA (AP) -- A federal appeals court pressed Georgia and Alabama attorneys last week on whether the states' new laws targeting illegal immigration conflict with federal rules and challenged critics of the crackdown to explain why local authorities can't use the measures to complement federal efforts. But the judges said they would wait for the outcome of a separate U.S. Supreme Court case before ruling. The three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments on two lawsuits opposing Alabama's law, one filed by immigrant rights and civil liberties groups and the other filed by the U.S. Department of Justice, and also heard arguments on a challenge to Georgia's new law filed by activist groups. The panel made it clear it wouldn't rule until the U.S. Supreme Court releases a decision on a federal government challenge to a similar law passed by Arizona. The arguments in that case, set for April, revolve around a sweeping law taking aim at illegal immigration passed in 2010 that was opposed by activist groups and the federal government. A decision is expected by early summer. Circuit Judges Bev Martin and Charles Wilson peppered attorneys from both states with questions about whether their state laws pre-empt federal rules. Alabama's law is widely considered the toughest in the nation. The judges raised multiple questions about the effects of a section of that law prohibiting courts from enforcing contracts involving illegal immigrants and another section that requires schools to ask about students' immigration status. First, however, the court reviewed the Georgia law. State attorney Devon Orland urged the panel to view the state law as a supplement to federal statutes that allow "dual enforcement," much like laws that allow both state and federal prosecutors to charge suspects with drug crimes. "It's axiomatic that both the state and the federal government can both prosecute the same crime," she argued, adding that the law's intent is not to "persecute people." Opponents of the measure argued that immigration is a federal issue that shouldn't be governed by a patchwork of state laws. Omar Jadwat of the American Civil Liberties Union said the law forces "police officers to take off their police officer's hat and put on an immigration enforcement hat." Wilson asked him whether a state can seek to regulate illegal immigration if it decides the "illegal alien population morphs into a public safety concern." Jadwat countered that it should be up to federal officials to address the issue. Georgia Attorney General Sam Olens said the court is wise to delay its decision until after the Supreme Court rules in the Arizona case. He added that the federal government needs to act on immigration. "The judges asked tough questions of both sides, which is appropriate," he said. "States wouldn't be passing these laws if the federal government did its job. The states are crying out for such action by passing these laws." Jadwat called the hearing "a good airing of the issues." Later, in the arguments over the federal challenge to the Alabama law, U.S. Deputy Assistant Attorney General Beth Brinkman said it "attacks every aspect of an alien's life and makes it impossible for an alien to live," and it regulates immigration in violation of the federal government's exclusive authority in that area. Alabama Solicitor General John Neiman argued that the contract section of the law only applies if the other party knows that the illegal immigrant is in the country illegally. He said the state was acting within its right to help the federal government enforce laws. Martin asked repeatedly if the section requiring schools to check the immigration status of students was a scare tactic. Neiman flatly denied that and said it was intended "to get data on the makeup of the students in our schools." In arguments over the activist groups' challenge to the Alabama law, Cecillia Wang with the ACLU said the section that effectively bars illegal immigrants from entering into contracts, including leases, would make it virtually impossible for illegal immigrants to live in the state, even if they were awaiting the outcome of their immigration case or requesting asylum and had been cleared by federal authorities to stay. Since the law includes exceptions for arranging transportation out of the state and consuming food on the spot, the message sent by that provision, she said, is "You can pass through but you had best be gone by morning." Alabama Deputy Solicitor Prim Escalona argued that the law is "intended to cooperate with the federal government." Wang also asked the court not to wait for the outcome of the Supreme Court's decision in the Alabama case to block parts of Alabama's law that have already taken effect because she said people "are suffering ongoing harm" as a result of the law. The three-judge panel also included U.S. District Judge Richard Voorhees, a visiting judge from North Carolina who asked few questions during the hearing. Wilson and Martin were appointed by Democratic presidents while Voorhees was tapped by Republican Ronald Reagan. Five states -- Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah -- adopted variations on Arizona's law last year. All five laws have been challenged by coalitions of civil rights and immigrant rights groups, and the federal government has sued to block those in Alabama, South Carolina and Utah. A federal judge in June temporarily blocked parts of Georgia's law pending the outcome of the legal challenge filed by the activist groups. One blocked section would authorize police to check the immigration status of suspects who lack proper identification. The other would create a state penalty for people who knowingly and willingly transport or harbor illegal immigrants while committing another crime. The section of the Alabama law that requires schools to check students' immigration status was temporarily blocked in October. But a section that allows police to check a person's immigration status during a traffic stop and to detain someone they believe is in the country illegally remains in effect. The section involving contracts and another that makes it a felony for an illegal immigrant to do business with the state for basic things such as getting a driver's license are also being enforced. The arguments attracted national media and dozens of protesters, who rallied outside the downtown Atlanta courtroom chanting slogans and holding signs saying: "We are families not fugitives" and "Hate Hurts Alabama." Published: Mon, Mar 5, 2012