Court hears first arguments over Arizona immigration law

In the first courtroom showdown over Arizona’s new immigration law, an attorney for a Phoenix police officer asked a federal judge Thursday to halt the implementation of much of the statute, saying it undermined the ability of the federal government to set foreign policy.

“We have only one nation; we can only have one immigration law,” attorney Stephen Montoya argued in a courtroom packed with more than 100 spectators. “Even though the state of Arizona believes Congress is not very competent and is inept, the state of Arizona has to live with the laws of Congress.”

The law, set to take effect July 29 unless U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton stops it, requires police to investigate the immigration status of people they lawfully stop and have reason to believe are in the country illegally. It also makes it a crime in Arizona to lack immigration documents.

Bolton took the matter under advisement after a two-hour hearing and gave no indication when she would issue a decision. She is scheduled to hear similar arguments July 22 in lawsuits filed by civil rights groups and the Obama administration.

Outside the courthouse, small groups of supporters and opponents of the law waved signs and American flags. “Adios Illegals,” read one backer’s T-shirt. Inside, both attorneys’ arguments veered smoothly from the legal to the political.

John Bouma, a lawyer for Gov. Jan Brewer, said the state wanted only to help the federal government do what it has so far been unable to do: secure the border.

“There’s no reason Arizona should stand by and suffer the consequences of a broken system when Arizona has 15,000 well-trained law enforcement officers who can help the federal government fix it,” he said.

Federal courts have held that states cannot create their own immigration policies. But Bouma contended that the Arizona law, known as SB 1070, required police to assist the federal government only by making various federal immigration crimes state offenses as well.

“The decision was made to make assisting the federal government in enforcing immigration laws a state policy rather than just a local option,” Bouma said.

Montoya scoffed at that suggestion, saying the best response to Arizona’s argument “is to laugh.” He noted that the Obama administration argued that the Arizona law would hinder the government in enforcing federal immigration regulations.

In a preview of arguments he is expected to make at next week’s hearing, Bouma suggested that the federal government was not properly enforcing existing laws. “They want to say, ‘Hey, we’re not doing anything, but we’ve preempted the field, so you can’t,’ ” he said.

The Arizona law runs 20 pages and contains 14 provisions, some so complicated or vaguely written that even the governor’s lawyer wasn’t sure of their meaning. Montoya said his client, Officer David Salgado, mainly wants to invalidate the parts that involve local law enforcement’s obligations to investigate illegal immigrants.

Officers nationwide are allowed to ask people if they are in the country legally and arrest them if they are not. But SB 1070 requires Arizona officers to do so when they stop people for violations of any laws or ordinances and suspect they are in the country illegally.

Montoya said the law means that if an officer saw him spitting on the sidewalk or parking his car at an expired meter and believed he was an illegal immigrant, the officer would be required to investigate.

Bolton noted another provision, which requires that anyone arrested in Arizona — for any offense — be held until the federal government verifies that the suspect is in the country legally. She asked Bouma whether that meant that someone arrested for a nonviolent misdemeanor, such as driving 20 mph over the speed limit, could be held for a long time during a status check.

Bouma said he didn’t believe so but, referring to the language in the law, acknowledged, “I don’t know if it’s the most artful way of writing that.” He told the judge that another part of the law, which says it must be applied constitutionally, would prevent people from being held too long.

nicholas.riccardi@latimes.com