Justice Department to File Suit Against AZ Immigration Law
The United States Justice Department filed a suit against Arizona's new immigration law today. According to the Wall Street Journal, the Justice Department will sue on the grounds that Arizona's new immigration law illegally intrudes on federal prerogatives and violates the Constitution's supremacy clause, which states that federal law trumps state statutes, legally referred to as "preemption."
Justice Department officials believe that enforcing immigration laws is a federal responsibility, according to the Washington Post. The new law allows law enforcement officials in Arizona to request proof of legal immigration, residency, or citizenship of anyone they suspect might be an illegal immigrant. Once the new law is enacted later this month, many of the people Arizona officials detain will be sent to federal immigration agencies, which may interfere with the regular operations of the agencies.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was the first to hint that the federal government would file a suit against the Arizona law last month. President Obama spoke out against the Arizona law in his address to Congress last week, stating, "As other states and localities go their own ways, we face the prospect that different rules for immigration will apply in different parts of the country, a patchwork of local immigration rules where we all know one clear national standard is needed," according to the Associated Press.
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and many civil rights groups have also publicly condemned the law. At least five other lawsuits have been filed against the Arizona law. The current lawsuit could delay the law from going into effect.
Media Resources: Associated Press 7/6/10; Feminist Daily Newswire 5/18/10; Wall Street Journal: Law Blog 6/18/10, 7/6/10; Washington Post 7/6/10
10/30/2014 Medication Abortion Access Threatened by Oklahoma Court Ruling - An Oklahoma state district court judge has refused to block a state law restricting medication abortion, clearing the way for the law to go into affect on November 1.
The Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice, together with a local abortion clinic in Tulsa, challenged HB 2684 in September, arguing that the law was an unconstitutional restriction on non-surgical abortion in the earliest weeks of pregnancy. . . .
10/30/2014 UPS Switches Pregnant Worker Policy Ahead of Supreme Court Case - The United Parcel Service (UPS) is changing its policy on light duty assignments for pregnant workers, even though the company will stand by its refusal to extend accommodations to a former employee in an upcoming Supreme Court case.
UPS announced on Monday in a memo to employees, and in a brief filed with the US Supreme Court, that the company will begin offering temporary, light-duty positions to pregnant workers on January 1, 2015. . . .
10/30/2014 North Dakota Medical Students Speak Out Against Measure 1 - Medical students at the University of North Dakota School of Medicine and Health Sciences are asking North Dakotans to vote no on Measure 1, a personhood measure on the state ballot this fall.
The students issued published a letter in the Grand Forks Herald stating that they opposed Measure 1 in part because they are against "the government's taking control of the personal health care decisions of its citizens." Nearly 60 UND School of Medicine students signed the letter, citing concerns over the "very broad and ambiguous language" used in the proposed amendment, which has no regard for serious and life-threatening medical situations such as ectopic pregnancies.
Measure 1 would change the North Dakota state constitution to create an "inalienable right to life" for humans "at any stage of development" - including the moment of fertilization and conception. . . .