The Department of Justice has set up an email address and hotline in response to the Supreme Court ruling on Arizona SB 1070’s “show me your papers” provision, a law which would allow law enforcement officers to check the immigration status of detained individuals based on “reasonable suspicion.” This provision, Section 2(B), will lead to racial profiling and harassment of people based on what they look like and how they speak, even if they were born in America, and the Department of Justice is responding appropriately.
The Justice Department has set up a hotline for the public to report potential civil rights abuses.
The number is 855-353-1010, the email is SB1070@usdoj.gov
If you have a minute, please share.
For those of you still slightly confused about the Supreme Court decision, ACLU came out with this infographic, titled “What’s at Stake”to help break it down. And if you haven’t already, watch this analysis from Frank Sharry, executive director of America’s Voice Education Fund.
For those of you who aren’t visual thinkers, Adam Serwer does an excellent job in his blog post today over at Mother Jones. Here’s the crux of his piece, simplifying the courts decision for those of us who can’t read or speak legalese:
Here’s what the Supreme Court actually did on Monday. The justices decided that the lower court that prevented SB 1070 from taking effect was mostly correct—because most of the law’s provisions were likely unconstitutional. The Supreme Court declined to block the “papers, please” provision of the law—which Brewer refers to as its “heart”—that requires local authorities to check the immigration status of anyone they arrest. But the high court did not find the controversial provision constitutional, and so it was not “upheld.” Instead, the high court deferred judgment on the matter. Saying that part of the law was “upheld” incorrectly implies that the court decided the “papers, please” provision was constitutional. The justices were actually decidedly agnostic on that point.
“The majority said it didn’t know enough about how the law would work in practice to rule decisively. Because the law has never gone into effect, it just wasn’t clear whether the law would conflict with federal policy.” says Adam Winkler, a professor at the University of California Los Angeles School of Law who wrote a column for the Daily Beast noting that many media outlets got the distinction wrong. “The court said to Arizona there’s a right way and a wrong way to apply this law and we’re watching you.”
