Court to hear appeal over Arizona's no-bail law
PHOENIX (AP) — A federal appeals court in San Francisco is taking up an Arizona case Tuesday that stems from the state's many immigration crackdowns from the past decade and focuses on the constitutional question of whether immigrants in the country illegally who are charged with crimes should be granted bail.
Arizona passed the no-bail law in 2006 as it targeted illegal immigration through a series of measures in the Legislature and at the ballot box. Proponents say the law prevents those in the country illegally who skip out on their bail from committing future offenses, but critics say the law's real intent was to punish immigrants before they have been convicted of crimes.
It was approved with 78 percent of the vote and was among four immigration proposals approved by Arizonans in 2006. The no-bail law was proposed by then-state Rep. Russell Pearce, who would later succeed in pushing through Arizona's landmark 2010 immigration enforcement law.
The law that will be considered by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denies bail to people who are in the country illegally and charged with certain felonies, such as murder, sexual assault and even aggravated identity theft.
Arizona is one of at least three states with laws confronting the issue of bail for people in the country without authorization. Missouri and Virginia have similar laws.
A three-member panel of the 9th Circuit previously rejected a challenge to the no-bail law, finding that it didn't run afoul of the Constitution. But the challengers succeeded in getting an 11-member panel of the court to consider the case.
The challengers say the push by the Arizona Legislature to put the measure on the ballot was permeated with the intent to punish people in the country illegally for federal immigration violations. They also argue the state law is trumped by federal law.
The lawyers defending the law say its intent was to improve public safety, not punish people for federal immigration violations. They also said the state law doesn't conflict with federal law.
