Federal judge hears arguments on South Carolina immigration law News
Federal judge hears arguments on South Carolina immigration law
Photo source or description

[JURIST] A judge for the US District Court for the District of South Carolina [official website] on Tuesday heard arguments on part of South Carolina’s controversial immigration law [SB 20, materials] that permits law enforcement officials to detain motorists on the side of the road for a “reasonable amount of time” while the officer checks the driver’s immigration status. Judge Richard Gergel asserted that 90 minutes is too long [AP report] to detain a vehicle, but that 38 minutes could be considered reasonable and may not violate the constitutional protections against unlawful searches and seizures conferred by the Fourth Amendment [text]. In July Gergel declined to lift an injunction [JURIST report] against the law despite the recent US Supreme Court [official website] decision striking down most of the model Arizona immigration law [SB 1070, PDF; JURIST news archive]. Gergel blocked provisions of the law [JURIST report] from being enforced in December. Gergel is likely to issue his ruling in the next few days.

The lawsuit against the South Carolina immigration law was put on hold [JURIST report] in January pending the outcome of Arizona v. United States. South Carolina is one of five states, including Alabama, Georgia, Indiana and Utah [JURIST reports] that modeled their recent immigration laws after Arizona’s controversial SB 1070. Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Arizona v. United States [opinion, PDF; JURIST report] in June, lower courts have handed down a variety of rulings. In September, a judge for the US District Court for the District of Arizona [official website] upheld [JURIST report] a controversial provision of Arizona’s immigration law] that requires law enforcement officials to check the immigration status of persons they stop or arrest if there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is in the US illegally. In August the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit [official website] struck down [JURIST report] several provisions of Alabama’s controversial immigration law [HB 56, PDF], upheld a few sections of the law and rejected part of Georgia’s immigration law [HB 87, text]. That same month, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit [official website] again heard arguments [JURIST report] on two anti-illegal immigrant laws enacted in 2006 by the city of Hazleton, Pennsylvania, which deny permits to businesses that employ illegal immigrants and fine landlords who extend housing to them.

Opinions expressed in JURIST Commentary are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of JURIST's editors, staff, donors or the University of Pittsburgh.