Court blocks parts of Ala. immigration law

Protesters march to the Etowah County Detention Center to protest Alabama's new immigration laws on, Dec. 3, 2011 in downtown Gadsden, Ala. / AP Photo
ATLANTA - A federal appeals court on Thursday blocked two more sections of Alabama's tough new law targeting illegal immigration pending the outcome of lawsuits that seek to overturn the law entirely.
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order temporarily halting a section that says courts can't enforce contracts involving illegal immigrants and another that makes it a felony for an illegal immigrant to do business with the state.
The law adopted last year was challenged by both the federal government and a coalition of activist groups. A three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit heard arguments last week but said it won't rule on the overall case until the U.S. Supreme Court decides a federal challenge to a similar law in Arizona. The appeals court is also weighing Georgia's law.
Lawyers in the Alabama case had asked the court to at least temporarily stop the two sections and others, claiming they were causing harm to people in the state.
"We are very pleased that the Eleventh Circuit understood the harms these provisions were causing in Alabama, and saw fit to enjoin them," said the Southern Poverty Law Center's Sam Brooke, who argued before the panel last week. "This is a great day for the residents of our state."
Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange said he strongly disagrees with the court's decision.
"I will continue to vigorously defend Alabama's immigration law in the courts," he said. "I am hopeful that the Supreme Court's coming decision in the Arizona case will make clear that our law is constitutional."
In October, the appeals court temporarily blocked other parts of the law, including a requirement for schools to check students' immigration status.
Sections still in effect include one that requires a law enforcement officer to determine the citizenship and legal status of a person stopped or arrested if the officer has a "reasonable suspicion" that he person is in the country illegally.
Lawyers in the Georgia case did not ask for immediate action because the parts of that state's law that they believe are most harmful were blocked by a federal judge in June.
After Arizona adopted its tough law in 2010, five other states Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah adopted variations on it last year, with Alabama's widely considered the toughest in the nation. All five laws have been challenged by coalitions of civil rights and immigrant rights groups, and the federal government has sued to block those in Alabama, South Carolina and Utah.
Opponents of the measures argue such laws lead to discrimination and racial profiling, and they say immigration is a federal issue that shouldn't be governed by a patchwork of state laws. Supporters say states have been forced to protect their resources because the federal government hasn't done enough to quell the influx of illegal immigrants.
Popular on CBSNews.com
- O.J. Simpson's ex-lawyer contradicts his testimony on guns 34 Comments
- Dozens injured as commuter trains collide in Conn.
- Seven-time lottery winner shares secret to winning Powerball
- Navy pilot earns degree in combat zone
- Tornadoes rip through northern Texas 17 Photos
- Why marry? Three generations tell their wedding stories
- Jail logs: Cleveland suspect Ariel Castro polite to guard
- Powerball jackpot at $600 million -- and climbing














*********************************************
What a load of crap!!! It's not causing any harm to LEGAL people in the state so it shouldn't matter at all. The illegals have no right to be there in the first place!!!!
Another case of Washington trying to horn in on States Law.
I noticed that the report included that the Fed move was supported by "Activist groups". Are these groups Socialist? Are they Americans?
For REAL Americans would understand that STATES CAME BEFORE WASHINGTON AND FED GOVT!!!
Read the Constitution you guys, it would save time. For you have the right to DISAGREE with a State, but none to interfere in its judiciary findings!!
Illegals are criminals and we need to weed out the criminals from our society,maybe adopt the North Korean method 12 years in a lobor camp then you can apply for citizenship?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, you are wrong. It is not a crime to be in the US without "documentation". Visitors do not need a visa to come to the US and there is no provision under which ICE could prosecute someone for being here without "documentation".
As to making the US like North Korea, it is sad to think that an apparent American citizen such as yourself would make such a deranged suggestion. Shame on you.
Maybe you missed the harassment of LEGAL brown people that resulted from this law. Brown people born in this country have had to leave Alabama to stop their children from being told "Go back to Mexico" and from having school authorities and police repeatedly question them about what foreign country they come from.
While they are NOT LEGAL CITIZENS, they should not be entitled to all of the benefits of being a LEGAL CITIZEN of this country. They SHOULD NOT be treated better than all of the others that have made evry effort TO BE AMERICAN CITIZENS (including learning the language and our political system). MOST of the illegals do NOT want to become citizens, they do NOT want to live by our laws, they do NOT want to learn our language, and they DO NOT want to become AMericans.
They are still illegal and can (and should) be arrested as any other law breaker would. The reason all of the states are doing this IS BECAUSE OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT REFUSES TO ENFORCE THE LAWS OF THIS COUNTRY. They have decided ON THIER OWN to only enforce what they want and ignore most everything else!
I can assure you that the second this country finds against these illegals, THEN they will claim we have to treat them as citizens of the country they came from... even though there is a double standard in their own countries.
Just look at Mexico's policies... you have NO RIGHTS if you are illegal and you have NO RIGHTS even if you are there legally and NOT a citizen.
Liberals are correct in a concern for the rights of illegal immigrants. We are very obligated to pursue due process and treat them with dignity, honor, compassion, and respect as we show them the door out of the country.
My wife has a very heavy Russian accent. Though she is not obliged to do so, she carries a copy of her USA passport with her in case an authority questions her citizenship. It bothers neither of us in the least if law enforcement asks questions. No screams of racial profiling. No hissy fits, because the illegals are a slur to anyone who came of citizenship legitimately. You know what they'd do to my wife back in Stalinist Russia if something was wrong with her papers? This is paradise.