(MintPress)—Immigration rights groups in Arizona are pleading their case for class action status against the state’s controversial SB 1070 anti-illegal immigration bill, a form of lawsuit that would allow thousands of residents to add their names to the list of plaintiffs claiming the law led to violations of their individual rights. Arguments for class action status were heard Monday in an Arizona U.S. District Court.
While the Supreme Court is set to make a decision this summer on the constitutionality of SB 1070, the civil action status would allow an unlimited number of residents to voice their concern over alleged violations of their own rights — and could potentially provide an avenue for dissent even if the High Court upholds controversial portions of the bill.
The Arizona U.S. District Court placed a temporary injunction on portions of the SB 1070 legislation that granted law enforcement the authority to question the legal status of any person stopped lawfully and to arrest without a warrant on the basis of probable cause for deportation.
Also at issue are provisions that make it a crime for a person to be present in the state without federal documentation and for an unauthorized immigrant to apply for employment.
The SB 1070 legislation was passed in 2010 and was praised by those within government and law enforcement who felt the federal government wasn’t doing enough to curb illegal immigration. However, civil rights groups, including the ACLU, immediately struck back — along with the Department of Justice, which was responsible for the lawsuit that now stands in the Supreme Court.
At the forefront of the recent movement for class action status are organizations and individuals who allege to have been the victims — or represent victims — of racial profiling. If granted civil suit status, plaintiffs could potentially add their name — or take their name off — to the lawsuit at any time.
“A lot of focus has been placed on the federal government’s lawsuit, but our case focuses on the civil-rights violations that SB 1070 will cause,” National Day Labor Organizing Network attorney Chris Newman told Arizona’s Republic newspaper.
According to an article published by the Practical Law Company, the act of a judge granting a case class action status in and of itself is a victory, as it generally leads to a compromise with the complainant.
“The class certification stage is perhaps the most important phase of the lawsuit,” the Practical Law Company article states. “If a plaintiff succeeds in persuading the court to certify the case as class action, the defendant will be under enormous pressure to settle rather than proceed to trial and face the prospect of a multi-million-dollar jury verdict.”
It also allows a large group of people to come together and make a big noise. When one person sues, it’s thought to be a drop in the bucket. When a group collectively sues for the same alleged violation of law, it tends to be more effective in drawing attention to an issue.
In this case, attorneys representing the plaintiffs are arguing for three specific groups of people to be included in the class action lawsuit, which include anyone who, under the law, is — or could be — stopped, detained, arrested or questioned based on a reasonable assumption that such action was taken because of they are Latino. It also broadens the spectrum to include those who could be turned away from living, working, traveling or attempting church in a specific area because they are Latino and anyone who could face a situation in which they cannot obtain employment because of their race.
Those representing Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer in the Supreme Court case has vocally cried out against the class action status request, telling the Arizona Republic News that the case is arguing against the bill itself, not on individual instances in which people have felt their civil rights were violated. Bob Henry, an attorney with Snell and Wilmer, the law firm standing for Brewer, told the Republic the plea for class action status is based on “speculation.”
“Class certification is simply unnecessary,” he told the Republic. “This entire statute will be implemented consistently with folks’ civil rights.”
Judge Sue Bolton, presiding over the case, has not yet made a decision and has said one will be made, although not any time this month.
While proponents of the class action status will keep an eye on the Supreme Court’s case ruling, they are also hoping class action status is granted, proving what they see as a safety net for possible violation of individual rights that could result from the new laws.