Analyzing the SB 1070 arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court

April 25, 2012

A bevy of political experts give analysis of the Supreme Court's reaction to SB 1070 and the arguments for and against it. They also discuss the political ramifications of supporting or overturning the bill.

ASU law professor and former Deputy Solicitor General of the U.S. Paul Bender says Arizona's lawyer defended the statute by claiming it doesn't actually do anything, and is therefore constitutional.

Brian Bergin of the Rose Law Group thinks the Justices asked a lot of smart questions, and SB 1070 will probably be allowed to keep provisions that don't actually change anything.

Chief Washington Correspondent for the National Law Journal Marcia Coyle says Justices are asking questions that clarify the interpretation of the bill, and agrees the current line of thought would give Arizona no power over the federal government's immigration enforcement.

Arizona Republic reporter Alia Rau gave her perspective on the reaction of Governor Jan Brewer, and believes that because Brewer supported the bill from the beginning, a victory in the Supreme Court would give her validation.

Dan Tichenor, a political scientist at the University of Oregon, thinks if the court gives SB 1070 its blessing in part or in full, other states with plans for similar legislation will move forward. He says if SB 1070 gets tossed out immigration will definitely play a huge role in upcoming campaigns, and puts presidential nominees in the hot seat.