Legal challenge over Utah immigration law nearing end, Attorney General Mark Shurtleff says
Section 5 is not an attempt to help the federal government "but to supplant the federal government," they argue.
Waddoups conducted a six-hour hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction of the Utah law in February but held off ruling until the Supreme Court handed down the Arizona ruling.
The Supreme Court struck down key provisions of Arizona's crackdown on immigrants but ruled that a controversial section of the law regarding suspects' status could go forward.
The court ruled the state cannot criminalize the act of an undocumented person applying for a job nor establish a misdemeanor offense for the failure to carry identification that documents whether someone is in the United States legally. The court also ruled the state cannot arrest someone based solely on suspicion that the person is in the country illegally.
After the Supreme Court ruled in late June, Waddoups allowed attorneys for the plaintiffs and the government additional time to file supplemental briefs. The law was temporarily enjoined pending the outcome of the lawsuit.
E-mail: marjorie@desnews.com
- Provo couple killed in RV accident near St....
- Police were watching, listening to Josh and...
- 'More questions than answers' as charges...
- Susan Powell's father wants help searching...
- Man charged with killing Ogden officer found...
- Parents of Sandy Hook victim, Emilie Parker,...
- Davis County honor student arrested in deaths...
- Common Core State Standards attract...
- Chaffetz not willing to take...
71 - Man charged with killing Ogden officer...
43 - S.L. draws up airport plans
33 - Couples registry gets preliminary nod...
29 - 'We're here to serve all boys,' Utah...
23 - Gov. Gary Herbert tells Washington...
17 - $2.6B needed for Utah to reach...
17 - Letters to family show Steven Powell...
17



But I thought immigrants were required to carry on their person at all times documents issued by the US Goverment. Where's the problem?
Regarding the statement: "The likelihood that plaintiffs will be targeted for law enforcement scrutiny is especially acute because they belong to racial or national origin minority groups, speak foreign languages or foreign-accented English More..
Third try screen name, you're right. The three provisions that the supreme court blocked are all Federal law already.
There were 14 provisions in the law (Arizona) 10 were approved by the Federal judge, and one was approved by the More..