At 12:01 a.m. Wednesday, the alarm will go off on a clock that began ticking more than 15 months ago as Utah's new slate of immigration-focused laws takes effect.

But the controversy fomented by 2008's SB81 is sure to continue beyond implementation as pending legal challenges develop, agencies tackle a mountain of unsubsidized administrative duties and a wide array of citizen groups continue to harangue state lawmakers for overstepping their boundaries.

On the other side of the argument, proponents continue to insist the state was backed into a corner by a lack of substantive immigration reform at the federal level.

The bill, in part, requires legal presence screening for all new public employees, contractors who do work for state and municipal agencies, and those who receive some public benefits. It also creates a voluntary program for municipal law enforcement to cross-deputize officers to act as immigration enforcers — a task that has long been the purview of the federal government.

A similar piece of legislation passed in Oklahoma in 2007 and was used by Utah lawmakers as a template for SB81. A portion of the Oklahoma bill was successfully challenged at the federal district court level and subsequently appealed to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard the case in early May but has not ruled.

Should the appellate court affirm the district court ruling, a significant portion of Utah's version would likely be neutralized.

Rumors of lawsuits have circulated almost since the moment the Utah bill passed the Legislature, and most recently representatives of the Utah chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association have promised that action is forthcoming, though when that may be remains a question.

Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff said Thursday that he was surprised that a legal challenge to SB81 had not yet emerged, but if and when it did happen, the decision of whether to fight that action, or demur until the 10th Circuit weighs in, would fall to legislative leaders.

"Our policy is, when legislation is being challenged, we can't make the independent decision on a position," Shurtleff said. "We don't have the authority to stipulate ... that decision would be made by the speaker of the House and the Senate president."

On Friday, both Senate President Michael Waddoups, R-Taylorsville, and House Speaker Dave Clark, R-Santa Clara, declined to comment on defending potential litigation until the matter was actually before them, but each leader expressed support of the measure. SB81 passed both chambers with overwhelming support in 2008, albeit after a heated, session-long battle and numerous amendments.