On July 9, 2010, the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) and individual tax-payers and residents of Arizona filed this class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of Arizona, District of Phoenix. The plaintiffs sued the state of Arizona and its governor under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 8 U.S.C. § 1101. The plaintiffs, represented by their own counsel and by the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, sought declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming that the recently enacted S.B. 1070 violated the Supremacy Clause, the Commerce Clause, and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and that S.B. 1070. The S.B. 1070 included a provision that required, in the context of a lawful stop, the verification of an individual's immigration status where there was a "reasonable suspicion" that the individual was unlawfully present in the United States. The plaintiffs claimed that the training materials provided to law enforcement to explain "reasonable suspicion" were vague and imprecise. The plaintiffs also claimed that enforcement of S.B. 1070 would cause them substantial and irreparable harm.
The proposed class certification was as follows: “All persons present in the State of Arizona who are not the subject of final non-appealable orders of removal issued by the United States Government and who have in the past or may in the future be detained or arrested by Arizona law enforcement authorities for allegedly not being in possession of an alien registration receipt, or for allegedly having violated 8 U.S.C. § 1306(a), or for allegedly having committed a public offense that makes them removable from the United States.”
On July 9, 2010, the case was assigned to the Honorable Neil V. Wake.
That same day, the plaintiff moved to transfer the case to Judge Susan R. Bolton, who had presided over six similar cases. This motion was granted on August 11, 2010.
On December 15, 2010, Judge Susan R. Bolton granted the Motion to Dismiss filed by the defendants Governor Brewer and the State of Arizona. The plaintiffs’ claims against the State of Arizona were dismissed with prejudice because the State was immune from prosecution in this case. The plaintiffs’ claims against Governor Brewer were dismissed without prejudice for a lack of standing. The plaintiffs were directed to file any amendments to their pleading within 30 calendar days.
On January 24, 2011, the tax-payers residing in Arizona filed an amended class-action complaint against the governor of Arizona and officials in Maricopa and Pima counties. They brought the same legal claims, but sought certification for a class of “all persons present in the Counties of Pima and Maricopa who are county taxpayers and whose tax payments have been or will in the future be used to implement S.B. 1070.”
The plaintiffs claimed that the State of Arizona’s S.B. 1070 included a broad set of provisions that were designed to “work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens” by making “attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local government agencies in Arizona.”
The plaintiffs sought declaratory judgment that Sections 1-6 of S.B. 1070 were invalid, null and void; preliminary and permanent injunctions restraining the further implementation Sections 1-6 of SB 1070; declaratory judgment that LULAC members could not be detained, arrested, or prosecuted by defendants or their agents for not having or for transporting people who were not registered pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1302, not carrying registration receipt cards pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1306, or for seeking or accepting employment in Arizona; and attorney’s cost.
On March 14, 2011, Judge Bolton issued an order granting Defendant Sheriff Arpaio’s motion for joinder in defendant Brewer’s motion to dismiss.
On August 26, 2011, Judge Bolton granted in part and denied in part the portion of Governor Brewer’s motion to dismissal the plaintiffs’ First Amendment claim. Judge Susan R. Bolton found that LULAC had organizational standing to challenge S.B. 1070 on First Amendment grounds, but that the individual plaintiffs lacked standing to bring their taxpayer claims. Moreover, LULAC had associational standing to bring an equal protection or § 1981 claim related to differential treatment of different groups of immigrants, but the plaintiffs’ claims under the Equal Protection Clause and § 1981 failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The Court dismissed the unnamed plaintiffs because the FAC contained no allegations referencing these plaintiffs. Finally, the Court declined to dismiss or stay any remaining claim in this case on the grounds that it was similar to or duplicative of claims in
Friendly House v. Whiting or
United States v. Arizona.
On November 22, 2011, Judge Susan R Bolton issued an order requesting that counsel for the plaintiffs to show cause in writing within 7 days why this case should not be dismissed for the plaintiffs’ failure to comply with this Court's September 27, 2011 scheduling order. The response by the plaintiffs’ attorney was received on November 28, 2011 and the case continued.
On February 1, 2012, Judge Susan R. Bolton dismissed with prejudice the case against the head of the Arizona Department of Public Safety, Maricopa County, and Pima County, prejudice as per the plaintiffs’ request.
On March 2, Governor Brewer moved to dismiss the case based on LULAC’s failure to comply with discovery orders. On May 31, 2012, Judge Bolton rebuked LULAC for its failure, but decided against dismissing the case. Instead, she stayed the case pending final rulings in
Friendly House v. Whiting and
United States v. Arizona. In addition, Judge Bolton denied as moot the Governor’s Motion to Consolidate Action.
On September 4, 2015, Judge Bolton lifted the stay issued on May 31, 2012 because the final rulings had been issued in both
Friendly House v. Whiting and
United States v. Arizona. The cases had upheld the constitutionality of the component of the bill requiring law enforcement to check immigration during stops. Judge Bolton ordered that the parties to confer and advise the Court how they wished to proceed. The parties agreed to file a stipulation to dismiss this case with prejudice, with each party to bear their own fees and costs.
On September 30, 2015, Judge Susan R. Bolton dismissed the case with prejudice. The case is now closed.
Elizabeth Daligga - 06/25/2012
Joanna Kuzdra - 02/27/2018
compress summary
