SUPREME COURT NOTEBOOK

Court limits state action on immigration By Mark Sherman Associated Press WASHINGTON (AP) -- A divided Supreme Court threw out major parts of Arizona's tough crackdown on illegal immigrants Monday in a ruling sure to reverberate through the November elections. The justices unanimously approved the law's most-discussed provision -- requiring police to check the immigration status of those they stop for other reasons -- but limited the consequences. Although upholding the "show me your papers" requirement, which some critics say could lead to ethnic profiling, the justices struck down provisions that created state crimes allowing local police to arrest people for federal immigration violations. And they warned against detaining people for any prolonged period merely for not having proper immigration papers. The mixed outcome vindicated the Obama administration's aggressive challenge to laws passed by Arizona and the five states -- Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah -- that followed its lead in attempting to deal with illegal immigration in the face of federal inaction on comprehensive reform. The administration had assailed the Arizona law as an unconstitutional intrusion into an area under federal control. Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined in his majority opinion by conservative Chief Justice John Roberts as well as three liberal justices, said the impasse in Washington over immigration reform did not justify state intrusion. "Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the state may not pursue policies that undermine federal law," Kennedy said. That part of the ruling drew a caustic dissent from Justice Antonin Scalia, who said the Obama administration doesn't want to enforce existing immigration law. In his majority opinion, Kennedy distinguished the "show me your papers" provision from the other challenged parts of the law by pointing out that consultation between local and federal authorities already is an important part of the immigration system. Local and state police called on the Immigration and Customs Enforcement's support center more than 1 million times in 2009 alone, he said. Kennedy said the law could -- and suggested it should -- be read to avoid concerns that status checks could lead to prolonged detention. "Detaining individuals solely to verify their immigration status would raise constitutional concerns," he said, but he did not define what would constitute too long a detention. A divided court struck down these three major provisions: -- Requiring all immigrants to obtain or carry immigration registration papers. -- Making it a state criminal offense for an illegal immigrant to seek work or hold a job. -- Allowing police to arrest suspected illegal immigrants without warrants. The vote was 6-2 against making it a state crime not to carry immigration papers and 5-3 against the other two provisions. Justice Elena Kagan sat out the case because of her previous work in the Obama administration. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said the ruling marked a victory for people who believe in the responsibility of states to defend their residents. The case, she said, "has always been about our support for the rule of law. That means every law, including those against both illegal immigration and racial profiling. Law enforcement will be held accountable should this statute be misused in a fashion that violates an individual's civil rights." Civil rights groups that separately challenged the law over concerns that it would lead to rights abuses said their lawsuit would go on. Even with the limitations the high court put on Arizona, the immigration status check still is "an invitation to racial profiling," said American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Omar Jadwat. Carlos Beltran, looking for day labor work Monday in the Phoenix area, said he was glad to hear the court struck down most of the law. "We can still be here today, find a job and go home and tell our wives we have something to eat tonight," said Beltran, who was born in the U.S. but whose parents are illegal immigrants. With the ruling, however, Beltran said the potential for racial profiling will become worse. "I don't want to have my dad afraid of looking for a job. He has four kids. They shouldn't be afraid of trying to make a living," he said. The Obama administration sued to block the Arizona law soon after its enactment two years ago. Federal courts had refused to let the four key provisions take effect. The other states adopted variations on Arizona's law. Parts of those laws also were on hold pending the outcome of the Supreme Court case. Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor joined all of Kennedy's opinion. Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas would have allowed all the challenged provisions to take effect. Justice Samuel Alito would have allowed police to arrest immigrants without papers who seek work, and also to make arrests without warrants. Scalia, in an unusual move, pointed to facts not in the record before the court when he described Obama's recently announced plans to ease deportation rules for some children of illegal immigrants. "The president said at a news conference that the new program is 'the right thing to do' in light of Congress' failure to pass the administration's proposed revision of the Immigration Act. Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of the Immigration Act that the president declines to enforce boggles the mind," Scalia said. The case is Arizona v. U.S., 11-182. ---------------- Associated Press writer Jacques Billeaud in Phoenix contributed to this report. Mandatory life without parole for kids barred By Jesse J. Holland Associated Press WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court on Monday threw out mandatory life in prison without parole for juveniles. The ruling continued its trend of holding that children cannot be automatically punished the same way as criminal adults without considering their age and other factors. The 5-4 decision split along ideological lines: The court's four liberals and swing vote Justice Anthony Kennedy joined to order states and the federal government to allow judges and juries to consider a juvenile's age when they hand down sentences for some of the harshest crimes, instead of making life in prison without parole automatic. By making youth "irrelevant to imposition of that harshest prison sentence, such a scheme poses too great a risk of disproportionate punishment," wrote Justice Elena Kagan, who was joined in the majority opinion by Kennedy and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. Monday's decision left open the possibility that individual judges could sentence juveniles to life without parole in individual cases of murder, but said state and federal laws cannot automatically impose such a sentence. This decision is in line with others the court has made, including ruling out the death penalty for juveniles and life without parole for young people whose crimes did not involve killing. Dissenting, the court's four conservatives said nothing in the Constitution forbids laws requiring mandatory life in prison without parole for juveniles. Chief Justice John Roberts was joined in the main dissent by Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Alito also wrote separately and read his dissent aloud in the courtroom. Under the majority opinion, Alito said, "Even a 17 1/2-year-old who sets off a bomb in crowded mall or guns down a dozen students and teachers is a 'child' and must be given a chance to persuade a judge to permit his release into society. Nothing in the Constitution supports this arrogation of legislative authority." Twenty-six states and the federal government have made life in prison without parole mandatory for some types of murder and allowed it to be applied to 14-year-olds, court papers said. In addition, Louisiana has some mandatory life without parole sentences for 15-year-olds, and Texas has some for 17-year-olds. The decision came in the robbery and murder cases of Evan Miller and Kuntrell Jackson, who were 14 when they were convicted and sentenced to life without parole. Jackson was sentenced in Arkansas after the shooting death of a store clerk during an attempted robbery in 1999. Another boy shot the clerk, but because Jackson was present he was convicted of capital murder and aggravated robbery. Using his case, Breyer and Sotomayor said in a separate opinion they would have gone even further than just getting rid of laws requiring mandatory life in prison without parole for juveniles like Jackson. "There is no basis for imposing a sentence of life without parole upon a juvenile who did not himself kill or intend to kill," Breyer said in a separate opinion. Miller was convicted in Alabama of capital murder during the course of arson. A neighbor, while doing drugs and drinking with Miller and a 16-year-old boy, attacked Miller. Intoxicated, Miller and his friend beat the 52-year-old man and set fire to his home, killing him. Monday's high court ruling "is an important win for children," said Bryan Stevenson, executive director of the Equal Justice Initiative, who represented Jackson and Miller. "The court took a significant step forward by recognizing the fundamental unfairness of mandatory death-in-prison sentences that don't allow sentencers to consider the unique status of children and their potential for change. The court has recognized that children need additional attention and protection in the criminal justice system." Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange expressed disappointment with the decision. "It is rare that a juvenile commits the worst kind of murder. But when this happens, the Alabama Legislature and most other American legislatures have determined that the appropriate sentence is life without parole. And they have made that sentence mandatory. Thus, it is hard to understand the court's ruling that this sentencing procedure is 'unusual' for the purposes of the Eighth Amendment," he said. The court's ruling was based on the Constitution's Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Strange said he didn't expect the ruling to be applied retroactively to others whose sentences are already final. And while Miller will get another sentencing hearing, "the prosecution will have a compelling argument that he should receive a life-without-parole sentence," he said. In Arkansas, prosecutor Scott Ellington said he expected the state Supreme Court to notify prosecutors, lawyers for Jackson and any others affected by the ruling to tell them what happens next. "The speculation is that those cases that are affected in this case will have to have a new sentencing hearing," Ellington said. According to data provided to the court, roughly 2,500 people are behind bars for life with no chance of winning their freedom for murders they committed before their 18th birthday. More than 2,000 of them were there because the sentence was mandated by a legislature. Advocates say 79 of them are in prison for crimes that took place when they were 14 or younger. The cases were Miller v. Alabama, 10-9646 and Jackson v. Hobbs, 10-9647. Campaign spending limits rejected By Mark Sherman Associated Press WASHINGTON (AP) -- The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday reaffirmed a 2-year-old decision that has opened the floodgates of spending in U.S. political campaigns. The justices struck down a state of Montana law limiting corporate campaign spending. By a 5-4 vote, the court's conservative majority said the decision in the Citizens United case in 2010 applies to state campaign finance laws and guarantees corporate and labor union interests the right to spend freely to advocate for or against candidates for state and local offices. The 2010 ruling has reshaped U.S. campaign financing, allowing organizations and wealthy donors to inject millions of dollars into the presidential campaign and other races through organizations known as "super political action committees," or "super PACS." Those groups can raise and spend unlimited amounts of cash, but are not allowed to coordinate their efforts with the candidates they support. In its ruling Monday, the majority turned away pleas from the court's liberal justices to give a full hearing to the case because the massive campaign spending since the 2010 ruling has called into question some of its underpinnings. The same five justices said in 2010 that corporations have a constitutional right to be heard in election campaigns. The decision paved the way for unlimited spending by corporations and labor unions in elections for Congress and the president, as long as the dollars are independent of the campaigns they are intended to help. The decision, grounded in constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech, appeared to apply equally to state contests. But Montana aggressively defended its 1912 law against a challenge from corporations seeking to be free of spending limits, and the state Supreme Court sided with the state. The state court said a history of corruption showed the need for the limits, even as Justice Anthony Kennedy declared in his Citizens United opinion that independent expenditures by corporations "do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption." State leaders in Montana swiftly condemned the decision. Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock called the nation's high court just "another political body," while Gov. Brian Schweitzer says the Supreme Court is now endorsing "dirty, secret, corporate, foreign money." Twenty-two states and the U.S. capital area, as well as Sen. John McCain, the former Republican presidential candidate, and other congressional champions of stricter regulations on campaign money, joined with Montana. Two liberal justices who were in dissent in Citizens United -- Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer -- already had challenged Kennedy's view that the independent campaign spending could not be corrupting by virtue of the absence of links to a campaign. When the court blocked the Montana ruling in February, Ginsburg issued a brief statement for herself and Breyer saying that campaign spending since the decision makes "it exceedingly difficult to maintain that independent expenditures by corporations 'do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.'" The corporations that sued over the law said it could not remain on the books after the Citizens United decision. Montana urged the high court to reject the appeal, or hold arguments and not issue what the court calls a summary reversal. The prevailing side in the lower court almost always strives to avoid high court review. But Montana and its supporters hoped a thorough debate over the Citizens United decision would lead to its reconsideration or at least limits on its reach. Justices won't hear Md. redistricting challenge WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court won't hear a complaint against Maryland's congressional redistricting map by voters unhappy with the state's new maps. The high court affirmed Maryland judges' decision to throw the lawsuit out. Some voters had complained that the new maps passed by the state legislature last year discriminated against African-Americans by failing to create a third majority-black congressional district in the state. The lower court judges also said the lawsuit didn't meet the burden of proof that the map is a partisan gerrymander. In addition, the panel rejected arguments that a recent law that counts prisoners in the communities where they are from instead of the prisons where they are confined is unconstitutional. Former DPS official's conviction upheld DETROIT (AP) -- The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the 2007 conviction of a former Detroit Public Schools official who was charged with aiding convicted terrorism plotter Jose Padilla. The Detroit News reports the high court without comment Monday refused to hear an appeal from Kifah Jayyousi. He's a former DPS superintendent and adjunct Wayne State University professor who was convicted of conspiring to murder, kidnap or maim persons overseas. Jayyousi was sentenced to 12 years and eight months in prison. The 51-year-old is being held at a medium-security prison in Illinois, and his projected release date is September 2017. The FBI has said Jayyousi founded the American Islamic Group and opened a bank account for the group in 1993 as part of an effort to raise money for "violent jihad." Court won't take up San Diego cross dispute WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court won't get involved in a fight over whether a 29-foot war memorial cross can remain on public land overlooking the Pacific Ocean in San Diego. The justices refused Monday to review an appeals court ruling that deemed the Mount Soledad cross an unconstitutional mixing of government and religion. This decision came despite the fact that the court plunged into the dispute over the use of religious symbols to honor fallen troops two times recently. The court has recently signaled a greater willingness to allow religious symbols on public land. The current cross sits on a 14-foot base, surrounded by walls that display more than 2,100 plaques commemorating individual veterans and veterans groups. Published: Wed, Jun 27, 2012