Wednesday’s oral argument in Arizona v. United States – the federal challenge to S.B. 1070, Arizona’s immigration law – remains the main subject of Court-related news. The Wall Street Journal (subscription required) and Reason Magazine have coverage, while the Christian Science Monitor focuses on reactions to the argument in Arizona. At ACSblog, Omar Jadwat lists “three things you should know” about the oral argument; Andrew Cohen ups the ante by offering “five takeaways” in The Atlantic; Michael Dorf of Dorf on Law takes the road less traveled and provides “a few offbeat observations” (three of them, since we’re counting). Jacques Billeaud of the Associated Press discusses some of the possible implications of the Court’s decision. And at NPR, Nina Totenberg describes her participation in an “insurrection” when the Supreme Court police caused confusion outside the Court after the oral argument by requiring reporters to show identification to enter the press area.
Commentators continue to weigh in as well. The editorial board of the Christian Science Monitor reviews the oral argument and expresses hope that “perhaps by the end of 2012, the nation will finally come closer to resolving the core dilemma in th[e] debate” over immigration enforcement: “How much enforcement is preferred, and who can do it?” At The Daily Beast, Terry Greene Sterling discusses the oral argument, while in an op-ed for the New York Daily News, Tamar Jacoby criticizes Arizona’s policy of “attrition through enforcement” and urges the Justices to remember the “the larger issues at stake.” Finally, at ACSblog, Gabriel Chin and Marc Miller counter predictions that the Court will uphold Section 2 of S.B. 1070, which requires police officers to verify the immigration status of anyone whom they stop or detain when there is reasonable suspicion to believe that the person is in the United States illegally, by painting a “more nuanced picture” of the argument.
Briefly:
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY