Utah's immigration enforcement law passes constitutional muster, state attorneys argue

SALT LAKE CITY — Utah's immigration enforcement law passes constitutional muster and should be allowed to go into effect, the Utah Attorney General's Office argues in a new federal court filing.

"The United States … has mischaracterized HB497, wrongly speculated about how it might be administered by local law enforcement, and misstated and ignored relevant federal law, which expressly supports those provisions," state attorneys wrote in a response to the federal government's motion for a preliminary injunction against HB497.

The issues before the court are "neither difficult nor complicated. When analyzed in light of the rights that Congress has given the states, and the states' inherent authority, HB497 passes constitutional muster," the response said.

HB497 was passed by the 2011 Utah Legislature and signed into law in March. The law requires police to verify the immigration status of people arrested for felonies and class A misdemeanors as well as those booked into jail on class B and class C misdemeanors. It also says officers may attempt to verify the immigration status of someone detained for class B and class C misdemeanors.

A class action lawsuit was filed in May by the ACLU and National Immigration Law Center on behalf of several individuals and organizations, claiming the law is unconstitutional and will invite racial profiling. In November, the Department of Justice intervened in the lawsuit, claiming Utah's law is unconstitutional because it attempts to establish a state immigration policy.

Attorneys representing the state of Utah, however, argue that HB497 reflects the state's attempt to "undertake its supporting role in the fight against illegal immigration, within the parameters set by Congress in those statutes. Contrary to the United States' arguments, HB497 does not conflict with Congress' mandate but is entirely consistent with it."

However, DOJ attorneys have argued that HB497 would undermine the federal government's control over the regulation of immigration.

"That argument is filled with naked assertions, hyperbole and a misunderstanding of what HB497 does," Utah attorneys responded.

Federal lawyers, in seeking a preliminary injunction of the law, contend the law would cause unlawful harassment, damage the United States' relationship with immigrant communities and harm its reputation with foreign countries.