Monday, November 1, 2010
I watched the oral arguments in United States v. Arizona live on C-SPAN this morning. An interesting oral argument indeed!
On Huffington Post, a live blogger seemed to get it right in judging the reaction of the panel (Judges Noonan, Paez, and Bea) to the various sections of SB 1070, only four of which were before the Ninth Circuit:
"Elizabeth Wydra: The judges seem to be pushing Kneedler (the Deputy Solicior General arguing on behalf of the United States] very hard on Section 2 of the law--which, as discussed, compels local officers to determine the immigration status of a person stopped or arrested. To recap, the judges seem to agree with the US on Section 3 (criminalizing mere presence in the US through registration procedures) and Section 5 (sanctions on employees or those seeking employment), but they are not quite so on board with the US on Section 2 (verification of status after stop or arrest) and Section 6 (which allows officers to arrest person that they have probable cause to believe has committed an offense rendering the person deportable)."
In my estimation, Judge Paez seemed most hostile to SB 1070 and Judge Bea most supportive, with Judge Noonan somewhere in between. It will take a while for an opinion to be written and the case to be decided. And we just may see a concurrence or two -- and possibly even a dissent.