Ninth Circuit Court to Review Arizona Law Denying Bail to Undocumented Immigrants

The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today ordered a full-court "en banc" hearing of Arizona's voter-approved law that denies bail to undocumented immigrants accused of serious crimes.

Since the challenge to the 2006 law appeared settled after a Ninth Circuit 2-1 ruling in June, the new order is a good start to the new year for the plaintiffs of the lawsuit -- and likely trouble for the law.

See also: - Bill Montgomery Is No Immigration Moderate

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and County Attorney Bill Montgomery didn't return requests for comment on the order.

Riding a crest of anti-immigrant sentiment in 2006, the initiative denying bail to suspected immigrant-criminals passed 78-22, spearhead by former State Senator Russell Pearce and former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas.

How times have changed: Pearce was recalled, Thomas lost the 2010 race for Attorney General to Tom Horne, then got disbarred. Arizona Governor Jan Brewer got re-elected after signing the anti-illegal-immigrant Senate Bill 1070 in 2010, but it was gutted in federal court. Brewer's now considered "back on her meds" by the leftie Wonkette blog. Sheriff Joe Arpaio's near-pogrom against undocumented residents has been reined in, mostly. He'll soon be appointed a federal monitor following the loss of a racial-profiling lawsuit and accusations by the U.S. Department of Justice that he led a police force that discriminated systemically against Hispanics. The U.S Supreme Court struck down key provisions of Arizona's voter-backed Proposition 200, which required people to show identification before filling out federal voter-registration forms. (The state's trying to get around that one by setting up two election booths, one for state and local issues and politicians, and a separate one for the non-ID-requiring feds.)

Now it's been ordered that another longtime staple of anti-immigrant fervor, the no-bail provision, is getting another look -- this time from the larger en banc court. New Times can tell you from experience that an en banc re-hearing might bode well for the appealing party. In June 2011, a three-member panel voted 2-1 in the case of New Times versus Sheriff Arpaio and Andrew Thomas that Arpaio and Thomas were immune from lawsuit in their capacity as public officials. But the court reversed itself following an en banc review by an 11-judge court, leading to the December settlement of $3.75 million in the case to New Times co-founders Michael Lacey and Jim Larkin, who were the subjects of a false arrest.

So, this Proposition 100 review could be interesting.

Records show the Ninth Circuit plans to hold a re-hearing in the case sometime during the week of March 17, with a specific time and date to be announced.

The American Civil Liberties Union is representing two undocumented immigrants denied bail in the case, one arrested on suspicion of drug charges and other who was suspected of assault, kidnapping and aiding a criminal syndicate.

Click here to read the Ninth Circuit Court panel's 2-1 affirming and dissenting positions in the Prop 100 case from June 2013

Click here for the original civil complaint filed in 2008 on behalf of the immigrants by the ACLU.

Click here for today's en banc order on Arizona's Prop 100 law

Got a tip? Send it to: Ray Stern.

KEEP PHOENIX NEW TIMES FREE... Since we started Phoenix New Times, it has been defined as the free, independent voice of Phoenix, and we'd like to keep it that way. With local media under siege, it's more important than ever for us to rally support behind funding our local journalism. You can help by participating in our "I Support" program, allowing us to keep offering readers access to our incisive coverage of local news, food and culture with no paywalls.
Ray Stern has worked as a newspaper reporter in Arizona for more than two decades. He's won numerous awards for his reporting, including the Arizona Press Club's Don Bolles Award for Investigative Journalism.