It is the opinion of the Court, Part Three

Things do not look so good for Arizona's bigoted "Your papers, please" law.

During an hourlong hearing [on Monday], the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals examined four provisions of the Arizona law that a federal judge in Phoenix blocked as unconstitutional. The three-judge appeals panel appeared largely inclined to agree with the lower court's July ruling, which said the law usurped the federal government's sole authority to regulate immigration.

There was some skepticism about blocking the state from from requiring police to investigate the immigration status of someone stopped on suspicion of a crime, largely because federal law permits police to inquire about a person's immigration status. Since this was taken from an article in the LA Times and not a law journal, I'm unclear on what if any difference there is between "investigating" a person's immigration status as opposed to "inquiring" about it or if there ultimately will be a meaningful difference between "allowing" an "inquiry" and "requiring" an "investigation."

The thing is, even if that provision of the law stands intact, it may not mean much. UC Hastings Law Professor David Levine said it "may end up being toothless" because the enforment of immigration law would still be up to the feds.

Meanwhile, other provisions of this hateful and hating law, including requiring all immigrants to have proof of legal residence with them at all times and barring illegal immigrants from accepting paid work, are likely headed for the dumpster.

Unsurprisingly, John Bouma, representing Arizona in the case, spun the usual horror stories about the border being "the finish line" for illegal immigrants, who are swarming over the border to commit horrendous crimes without ever being expelled. Happily, it seems the members of the panel were not overly impressed.