[JURIST] The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] Friday denied [order, PDF] the state of Arizona’s request for an expedited appeal to lift the preliminary injunction issued Wednesday against several provisions of a controversial immigration law [SB 1070 materials; JURIST news archive]. The court set a briefing schedule with the opening brief due August 26 and the answering brief due September 23, and scheduled a hearing to occur the week of November 1. No extensions will be granted “absent extraordinary and compelling circumstances.” The court indicated [response to motion, PDF] that Ninth Circuit Rule 3-3(b) [text], governing preliminary injunction appeals, should set the appropriate time frame for the appeal. On Thursday, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer (R) [official website] filed an expedited appeal [JURIST report] asking the court to establish a timeline for briefs, with the opening brief due August 12, the response brief due August 26, and schedule oral arguments for the week of September 13.
The preliminary injunction [JURIST report], issued Wednesday, came at the request of the US Department of Justice (DOJ) [official website], which filed its suit challenging the constitutionality of the law [JURIST report] earlier this month. Judge Susan Bolton issued the injunction against provisions of the law requiring the verification of the immigration status of people reasonably suspected of being illegal immigrants, authorizing the warrantless arrest of those police have probable cause to believe have committed an offense that could lead to deportation, and requiring noncitizens to carry their registration papers with them at all times. The law has been widely criticized as unconstitutional and allegedly legalizing racial profiling. Also in July, the American Bar Association (ABA) [official website] filed an amicus curiae brief [JURIST report] in support of the DOJ lawsuit, following the submission of another amicus curiae brief [JURIST report] in support of a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) [advocacy website]. In the brief filed in support of the US, the ABA argued that the Arizona law would interfere with law enforcement officers’ public safety functions and infringe on both citizens’ and noncitizens’ constitutional rights by placing upon them the burden of proving their citizenship.