Mayes says despite Supreme Court ruling on ICE patrols, Arizona should follow 9th Circuit

Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes says a recent ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court threatens to erode constitutional protections and revive the racial profiling issues caused by Arizona’s SB 1070.

The high court’s 6-3 ruling sides with the Trump administration in a case over whether "roving" ICE patrols in Los Angeles are constitutional.

Immigrant rights groups and individuals who filed suit argued the Trump administration was systematically targeting brown-skinned people and that people were detained indiscriminately and denied lawyers.

Supreme Court justices ruled to upend a lower court order that temporarily blocked the patrols. Though the court's decision did not offer an explanation into the ruling, a separate write-up from conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh argued federal agents can use ethnicity and language as factors to determine reasonable suspicion to question a person's immigration status.

"To be clear, apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion; under this Court’s case law regarding immigration stops, however, it can be a concurring “relevant factor” when considered along with other salient factors," Kavanaugh wrote.

The Show

U.S. Supreme Court decision to allow roving immigration patrols echoes Arizona’s SB 1070

Lauren Gilger

The U.S. Supreme Court overturned a lower court order Monday that changes the game when it comes to immigration enforcement across the country — and it’s bringing up memories of the SB 1070 era here in Arizona.

Listen • 8:21

In a statement, Mayes said the new ruling threatens to revive a dark past in Arizona.

"Without explanation, the majority of the Supreme Court has allowed federal agents in the Los Angeles area to continue to stop and detain people, many of whom may be citizens or legal residents, based on factors like language or appearance that supposedly support the inference that those people may be here illegally," Mayes said.

"When Arizona passed SB 1070 15 years ago, we saw a drastic increase in instances of racial profiling, regardless of an individuals’ immigration status. The Supreme Court’s decision today threatens to revive that dark past."

Mayes also argued the lower order, which was upheld by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, remains binding law within Western states within that court's jurisdiction, including Arizona.

"Because no majority of Justices on the Supreme Court stated their reasons for granting a stay, we do not know whether they disagreed with the 9th Circuit on the merits or merely as to procedural issues such as standing or the scope of relief," Mayes said.

"As a result, the 9th Circuit’s decision on the merits remains precedential law. Federal law enforcement officers should follow that ruling and ensure that any stops are based on individualized suspicion about the person in question, not sweeping generalizations."