« Skyscrapers in D.C. | Main | The Two Percent Solution »

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

Other LawProfs on SB1070 on the Eve of Argument UPDATED: Now with Transcript

I've shared my views on SB1070 at some length.  However, not surprisingly, the case has also generated commentary from many other, much wiser, profs.  Here's a sampling. 

David Harris of Pitt wrote about the racial profiling issues on Jurist.  Toni Massaro (Arizona) and Carissa Hessick (ASU) were on TV previewing the case.   Peter Spiro (Temple) wrote an op-ed in The New York Times arguing that the law should be allowed to stand, because even though it is a bad law, it will wither away on its own and punish states that adopt it. (But at what cost?) 

Steven Schwinn (John Marshall) is cited here. Margaret Stock (Alaska) writes that even if Arizona wins, they may lose in the long run.  UC Davis Dean Kevin Johnson is quoted in this Arizona Republic article, and blogged about the case here. In Slate, Paul Kramer, a Vanderbilt immigration expert but not in the law school, perceptively argued about the relevance of an 1876 case. Pratheepan Gulasekaram (Santa Clara Law) and Karthick Ramakrishnan (UC Riverside poli sci) have an op-ed in the LA Times contending that SB1070 and its siblings are the product of partisan politics, and one of them has a post on the ACS blog.  Evelyn Cruz (ASU) is quoted here.  UC Irvine Dean Erwin Chemerinsky previews the case here.  Finally, Marc Miller and a friend have an ACS Blog post here.  Apologies in advance to anyone I missed.

UPDATE: Here's the oral argument transcript

Posted by Jack Chin on April 24, 2012 at 10:20 PM | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Other LawProfs on SB1070 on the Eve of Argument UPDATED: Now with Transcript:


Excluding profiling from the equation is sad, because it only takes a few rogue police officers to unjustly force people to produce their "freedom papers" to once again set our country back as we strive for racial harmony.

Posted by: Kendall Isaac | Apr 25, 2012 7:11:19 PM

Hi Matt,

Profiling wasn't part of the challegne in part becuase the Obama Administration takes the position that profiling is legal in immigration enforcement. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/12/AR2010071204049.html

The other parties' challenge based on potential profiling is not yet ripe. I think that issue would be open in a future suit.


Posted by: jack | Apr 25, 2012 2:42:23 PM

Jack -- why is the profiling aspect not part of the challenge? Is it that there was not sufficient evidence of profiling when the law was challenged? And if the law is upheld and there is subsequent evidence of profiling, would there be any res judicata implications to a profiling challenge to the statute?

Posted by: Matt Bodie | Apr 25, 2012 12:45:39 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.