Get breaking news alerts via email

Click here to manage your alerts
Federal judge ‘de-fangs’ Utah’s immigration law
HB497 » Judge rejects many parts of the Utah “show me your papers” law, restricts others.
First Published Jun 18 2014 06:09 pm • Last Updated Jun 19 2014 07:52 am

A federal judge on Wednesday struck down much of a hard-fought "show me your papers" Utah immigration law and put enough restrictions on remaining portions of the law that opponents proclaimed it has been "de-fanged."

The ruling "very much takes the teeth out of HB497," passed in 2011, said Karen Tumlin, attorney for the National Immigration Law Center, which challenged the law with other immigrant and civil liberties groups and the U.S. Department of Justice.

Join the Discussion
Post a Comment

The law — passed amid huge protests and hot debate — required police to verify the immigration status of anyone arrested for a serious crime. It also allowed, but did not require, police to check on people stopped for less serious crimes such as traffic violations.

U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups allowed those provisions to stand but said police cannot prolong a stop or detention "merely to confirm a person’s immigration status," nor can police stop people just to check their status.

Tumlin said that means if police officers pulled someone over for a broken tail light, once a ticket is issued, they can no longer hold that person in hopes of determining their status.

It also means an immigrant "need not fear being charged with a misdemeanor or felony simply for driving her parent to the grocery store or a friend to church," said Archie Archuleta of the Utah Coalition of La Raza, a plaintiff in the lawsuit.

The bill’s sponsor said that restriction is reasonable and limits most status-checking to serious criminals. "It guards against a rogue cop targeting people just over their immigration status, which was not my intent anyway," former state Rep. Steve Sandstrom, R-Orem, said.

Waddoups struck down a provision that allowed a warrantless arrest based only on suspicion of illegal immigration status, saying it "seeks to bestow on state officers greater discretion and authority than that possessed by federal immigration officials."

He rejected another provision that made it a crime to entice someone to enter the country illegally or to harbor undocumented immigrants.

He also struck down a provision requiring cities and counties to cooperate with any efforts toward alien registration.

story continues below
story continues below

Waddoups said such provisions interfere with the federal government’s supremacy in such areas of immigration law.

The judge allowed provisions to stand that ban cities from enacting rules that hinder police from cooperating with federal authorities in enforcing immigration laws, but said officers must first be expressly invited and authorized to assist by the federal government before they can act.

Waddoups upheld a portion of the law that allows police to drop off undocumented immigrants to federal immigration officials but put some tight rules on it.

He said federal authorities must authorize the transfer first. Also, the undocumented immigrant must have been stopped for some crime other than immigration violations, not have his detention prolonged to check status and already be in the lawful custody of police when transported (and not picked up just for that).

Waddoups also upheld a part of the law that allows people stopped by police to prove citizenship, if they wish, by presenting a driver’s license, state ID card or similar documents.

The ruling by Waddoups comes after years of wrangling. He had put the law on hold hours after it took effect in 2011. He then waited for the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on (and mostly reject) a similar Arizona law. Oral arguments on the Utah case occurred last year.

The Utah Attorney General’s Office issued a statement saying the decision "affirms there is a role for state action related to the area of immigration enforcement," and that it upholds the state’s ability "to legislate cooperative models of enforcement authority to assist federal officials."

Tumlin said the ruling keeps intact a series of wins across the country that have struck down similar bills after the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on the Arizona bill. Utah’s was one of the last cases still pending.

"This is the last court decision that rejects the string of anti-immigration laws that passed out as part of an anti-immigrant agenda in 2011," Tumlin said.

Next Page >

Copyright 2014 The Salt Lake Tribune. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Top Reader Comments Read All Comments Post a Comment
Click here to read all comments   Click here to post a comment

About Reader Comments

Reader comments on sltrib.com are the opinions of the writer, not The Salt Lake Tribune. We will delete comments containing obscenities, personal attacks and inappropriate or offensive remarks. Flagrant or repeat violators will be banned. If you see an objectionable comment, please alert us by clicking the arrow on the upper right side of the comment and selecting "Flag comment as inappropriate". If you've recently registered with Disqus or aren't seeing your comments immediately, you may need to verify your email address. To do so, visit disqus.com/account.
See more about comments here.
Staying Connected
Contests and Promotions
  • Search Obituaries
  • Place an Obituary

  • Search Cars
  • Search Homes
  • Search Jobs
  • Search Marketplace
  • Search Legal Notices

  • Other Services
  • Advertise With Us
  • Subscribe to the Newspaper
  • Access your e-Edition
  • Frequently Asked Questions
  • Contact a newsroom staff member
  • Access the Trib Archives
  • Privacy Policy
  • Missing your paper? Need to place your paper on vacation hold? For this and any other subscription related needs, click here or call 801.204.6100.