State Sen. Jerry Lewis, R-Mesa:
"Regardless of how one feels about immigration, one thing is abundantly clear: we can do better. Instead of politicizing such a critically important issue, all of us -- Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and Libertarians -- should come together to find a permanent solution that keeps our border secure, strengthens our economy, strengthens families, and allows law-abiding immigrants who want to work to do so legally."
Congressman Ron Barber:
"SB 1070 was an expression of Arizona?s frustration ? but it did nothing to make our border secure, as even Gov. Jan Brewer has admitted. We must give renewed attention to stopping the drug cartels that have inflicted their violence on so many innocent people. Today?s court decision leaves open the essential question of how we make sure that all Americans enjoy the protections against discriminatory treatment that are guaranteed by our Constitution and it also still fails to offer any remedy for securing our border."
"I would have preferred to see the Supreme Court give more latitude to states, not less. And the states, now under this decision, have less authority, less latitude, to enforce immigration law."
Congressman Trent Franks:
"The Supreme Court today affirmed what proponents of SB 1070 have long held: that the core provision of the bill is not unconstitutional and, moreover, is in perfect keeping with current immigration law, which the Obama Administration has simply decided it'd prefer not to enforce. Today's decision is a victory both for the state of Arizona and for every state struggling under the burden of a federal government that is willingly and shamefully derelict in their duty to control border crime."
Anthony D. Romero, ACLU executive director:
"By reinstating the "show me your papers" for now, the Court has left the door open to racial profiling and illegal detentions in Arizona. The ACLU has amassed an $8.77 million war chest to fight those battles in court and to counter any and every anti-immigrant copycat measure in other states. The xenophobic virus in Arizona must be contained before it spreads to other states. These laws will devastate local economies, undermine law enforcement and pit neighbor against neighbor. It?s a toxic combination that threatens basic American values."
Thomas Saenz, president and general counsel, MALDEF:
"By striking down three of the four provisions before the Court, the decision sends a strong warning to any states or localities that have enacted or that may be considering enacting their own immigration regulation schemes. In short, the Court?s decision should bring to a grinding halt the machinery of intolerance and racism that has promoted these laws. Arizona, in particular, has paid a very high price for what amounts to a very limited, even Pyrrhic, victory today."
Miriam Yeung, executive director, National Asian Pacific Women's Forum.
"SB 1070, even with some provisions removed, threatens to tear families apart and create a dangerous level of mistrust between law enforcement and women immigrants who fear detention. By upholding one of the most harmful provisions of the law, the U.S. Supreme Court has set a dangerous precedent."
Tucson Police Chief Roberto Villasenor:
"There is a body of case law defining what constitutes reasonable suspicion in other contexts, but no such guidance exists regarding illegal immigrants, and SB 1070 does not define the term. Under the Supreme Court decision, police departments in Arizona must enforce Section 2(B), and no one respects the authority of the courts more than police chiefs, so we will do our best to enforce the law. But we are in uncharted territory on this issue."
Janet Napolitano, homeland security secretary:
“The Court’s decision not to strike down Section Two at this time will make DHS? work more challenging. Accordingly, DHS will implement operational enhancements to its programs in Arizona to ensure that the agency can remain focused on its priorities.”
House Speaker Andy Tobin:
“It is unfortunate the Obama Administration is not interested in enforcing the law and attempted, through Attorney General Holder, to prevent SB 1070 from being implemented. SB 1070 would not have been necessary had the administration been willing to support Arizona with appropriate enforcement strategies.”
State Senate President Steve Pierce:
“Our state has grown frustrated by the lack of security at our border with Mexico and inaction by the federal government. SB 1070 grew out of that frustration. It was a common sense bill that I supported, along with nearly every member of our Caucus.”
Todd Landfried, spokesman, Arizona Employers for Immigration Reform:
“We hope that this important decision will discourage states from considering state--level immigration laws and push Congress to directly address the issue of immigration reform expeditiously in a practical and positive manner that helps our businesses, economy and country succeed and grow while ensuring our Nation’s security.”
Caroline Isaacs, director, American Friends Service Committee Tucson office:
“Today’s ruling unfortunately upholds the worst part of this mean-spirited law, even as it overturns other sections. In effect, it legalizes racial profiling. How can law enforcement know a person’s immigration status simply by looking at them? Most troubling is this decision undermines the moral fiber of the U.S. Constitution, and can be used by other states to enact laws that also enable racial profiling.”
“I am pleased that the Supreme Court has struck down key provisions of Arizona's immigration law. What this decision makes unmistakably clear is that Congress must act on comprehensive immigration reform. A patchwork of state laws is not a solution to our broken immigration system -- it’s part of the problem. At the same time, I remain concerned about the practical impact of the remaining provision of the Arizona law that requires local law enforcement officials to check the immigration status of anyone they even suspect to be here illegally. I agree with the Court that individuals cannot be detained solely to verify their immigration status. No American should ever live under a cloud of suspicion just because of what they look like. Going forward, we must ensure that Arizona law enforcement officials do not enforce this law in a manner that undermines the civil rights of Americans, as the Court’s decision recognizes.”
Phoenix Mayor Greg Stanton:
“Today's Supreme Court decision that much of SB 1070 is unconstitutional is a stark reminder of the need for Congress to act immediately on comprehensive immigration reform. It also reminds us that our State Legislature should stop focusing on divisive issues and instead spend their time on job creation and smart economic development for the State of Arizona.”
Ali Noorani, executive director, National Immigration Forum:
“Just as the nation is inching closer to a consensus on the need for solutions on immigration, the Supreme Court is dividing the nation. While the Supreme Court largely agreed that S.B. 1070 goes against our Constitution, it still left one dangerous provision, Section 2 (B) which is the pointy end of the sword of the Arizona immigration law. The implementation of the racial profiling inherent in Section 2(B) will cause irreparable harm in Arizona.”
Alfonso Aguilar, executive director of the Latino Partnership for Conservative Principles:
“This is a big victory for those of us who thought SB1070 was a bad law that unfairly criminalized undocumented immigrants. The Court today invalidated most of the statute and even left open the possibility that the only clause that they didn’t strike down - which allows state police to check the immigration status of anyone they detain - be eventually challenged in federal court again and found unconstitutional.”
Bill Montgomery, Maricopa County attorney:
“Earlier this month, the President played election year politics, pandering without offering a real solution to matters of great concern to Arizona and our Nation. Today, the Supreme Court upheld the rule of law. Tomorrow, Arizona law enforcement will (ITALICS) continue (ROMAN) to do their job on our behalf, respecting the civil rights of all and upholding our state and federal constitutions and real prosecutors will exercise true discretion without violating our oath to uphold the law.”
Jon Kyl and John McCain (joint statement):
“While we still want to fully review the Supreme Court’s decision, today’s ruling appears to validate a key component of Arizona’s immigration law, SB 1070. The Arizona law was born out of the state’s frustration with the burdens that illegal immigration and continued drug smuggling impose on its schools, hospitals, criminal justice system and fragile desert environment, and an Administration that chooses to set enforcement policies based on a political agenda, not the laws as written by Congress.”
Regina Jefferies, chair, Arizona chapter, American Immigration Lawyers Association:
“Arizona AILA has every expectation that law enforcement will follow the law and treat everyone, regardless of race or nationality, with dignity and respect. But we’ll also serve as watchdogs to make sure that happens, and provide representation to those who need it, to make sure everyone is treated fairly. The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision today allowing the ``papers please" provision of SB 1070 to go into effect doesn’t make it smart policy, not for our economy, not for diversity and not for human rights.”
House Minority Leader Chad Campbell, D-Phoenix.
“The Supreme Court ruling on SB1070 is not surprising. What we need is comprehensive immigration reform and border security so we can solve this issue for the long-term, not more divisive legislation and bickering. In light of today’s ruling, I ask all leaders at every level of government to put aside their political agendas and partisanship to work together on comprehensive, fair and effective immigration reform and border security. ”
Assistant House Minority Leader Steve Farley, D-Tucson:
“Arizonans expect and deserve reasonable immigration reform. SB 1070 is a far cry from reasonable. It lets politicians get away with political grandstanding instead of enacting real reform. We need substantive reform and we need to ensure our police officers have the tools they need to crack down on true criminals and keep our communities safe and secure.”