National media outlets are tapping into the expertise of faculty at the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law for analysis of the April 25 oral arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court on Senate Bill 1070, Arizona’s controversial immigration-enforcement legislation.

The case, Arizona v. United States, centers on a law passed by the state legislature requiring local police to check the immigration status of criminal suspects if they have “reasonable suspicion” that they are in the country illegally. The Obama administration sued to block the law, and most of the law is on

Carissa Byrne Hessick

hold during the appeal.

Professor Carissa Byrne Hessick was a guest on Wisconsin Public Radio with host Kathleen Dunn on Wednesday, April 25.

Hessick said the most controversial section of SB 1070 requires police officers to ask for proof of immigration status if they have a reasonable suspicion that someone is in the country illegally.

The United States is arguing that SB 1070 is pre-empted by federal law. Hessick said that a number of states that tried “to do their own thing with immigration” in the 1800s, but it has been awhile since states have tried to take a more active role in immigration.

To listen, click here.

Hessick also was quoted in a Tuesday, April 24, Georgia Public Media article, “Supreme Court Enters Immigration Debate,” by reporter Jeanne Bonner. Hessick said that, while the Supreme Court’s ruling on SB 1070 will affect the fate of a similar Georgia law, it remains to be seen in what ways.

“It’s not clear that the way the Supreme Court will end up deciding the Arizona case will necessarily dictate how the Court of Appeals has to decide the Georgia case,” Hessick said.

She says the court could rule narrowly on the Arizona law or more broadly on general principles. Hessick says because only eight judges will hear the case, the court could be split, which would mean the Court of Appeals wouldn't have a clear blueprint on how to rule.

To read the article, click here.

Also, Hessick was quoted in The National Law Journal article, “An ideological gulf, and familiar combatants, in Arizona immigration case,” by Marcia Coyle on Monday, April 23.

“I think you can tell from the way the arguments went in the Ninth Circuit and the way the briefs are written that each side thinks it has stronger arguments on difference provisions,” Hessick said. “The United States, for example, appears to have a very strong argument on the provision relating to registration documents of aliens and state penalties and enforcement. It’s difficult to say registration of aliens isn’t an area where you can find field pre-emption by federal law.”

Hessick said Arizona’s arguments appear strong on its provision authorizing the warrantless arrest of aliens where there is probable cause that they have committed deportable offenses.


“Arizona is much more comfortable saying that this isn’t an issue that should have been decided on a facial challenge and the provision should have been allowed law to go into effect.” Hessick said. “The arguments the United States makes aren’t made with nearly the same force.”

Hessick said that, in the end, the justices may issue a decision that affirms and reverses in part, depending on the particular provision.

To read the article, click here.

An April 22 article in USA Today entitled, “Ariz. to defend its tough immigration law at Supreme Court,” included commentary from Hessick and Professor and Dean Emeritus Paul Bender. Hessick said attorneys may focus not on whether the state can enforce federal immigration law, but how many and which legal cases to pursue.

“Arizona is saying ‘the federal government should have 100 percent enforcement, and because it doesn’t, we are going to enact our own laws that allow us to enforce in situations where the federal government doesn’t’,” she said.

Bender said the federal government's best chance may be to focus on the real-life impact of allowing the law — and laws in any other state — to go into effect.

"If any state can do something like this, you would have the possibility of every state in the country having some sheriff's deputy or city policeman going up to someone who looks Hispanic and saying, `Show me your papers’,” Bender said. "That’s really the strongest argument for the government to

Paul Bender

make."

To read the story, click here.

Bender teaches courses on and has written extensively about U.S. and Arizona Constitutional Law. Professor Bender has argued nearly two dozen cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and actively participates in constitutional litigation in federal and state courts. He was a law clerk for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter and was Principal Deputy Solicitor General of the United States from 1993-1997.

Hessick teaches Criminal Procedure, Criminal Law and Federal Crimes. Professor Hessick is the author of “Arizona’s S.B. 1070: Separating Fact from Fiction,” and co-author of “A Legal Labyrinth: Issues Raised by Arizona Senate Bill 1070,” which has been cited in, among others, The Wall Street Journal and The Economist.