Judge blocks enforcement of Ind. immigration law, SEA 590

Indiana’s new immigration law will not be enforced until a federal judge decides whether to overturn it.

The law, SEA 590, is based in part on Arizona’s controversial immigration law and deals with various immigration matters.

Two IU students, Erick and Uriel Gama, and several others were arrested in May at the Indiana statehouse for protesting SEA 590 and another state law dealing with immigration.

The plaintiffs in the case specifically challenged two portions of the law, which was scheduled to go into effect July 1 but will now be delayed while the court considers the plaintiffs’ case.

Section 19 of the law allows a police officer to make a warrantless arrest of someone suspected of being an illegal immigrant when certain officials or courts grant them a removal order or when the officer has probable cause that the individual has been indicted or convicted of a felony.

Section 18 of the law makes it illegal for any person to accept or offer a consular identification card as a valid form of identification for any purpose.

U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker of the Southern District of Indiana said Section 19 likely violated the U.S. Constitution’s due process and search and seizure clauses by allowing police officers to arrest individuals if federal officials had questioned their immigration status — even if the federal authorities had found that the individuals in question were here legally.

Barker called the law “seriously flawed” and characterized the state’s arguments against injunction as a “seemingly desperate effort to save it.”

Barker also called parts of the state’s defense of the law as “entirely fanciful” and said the state attorneys’ proposed interpretation of the law “would read the statute out of existence.”

She also found the plaintiffs had successfully argued SEA 590 interferes with federal immigration policy, which is in the domain of the federal government. She called Indiana and other states’ attempts to justify similar immigration laws without encroaching on federal immigration jurisdiction as “tortuous.”

Addressing Section 18, Barker noted even U.S. embassies and consulates offer consular ID cards to U.S. citizens abroad. She said the “statute directly interferes with rights bestowed on foreign nations by treaty,” and Section 18 interferes with federal U.S. foreign policy.

Barker called the regulations against consular ID cards “sweeping” and said consulates “are, by treaty, entitled to use” the cards.

These regulations restrict the manner in which foreign citizens may travel, live and trade in the United States and have a direct effect on our nation’s interactions with foreign nations, Barker said.

Part of the justification for granting a preliminary injunction against a section of a law is that the judge must think the plaintiffs are likely to win their case.

Barker ruled that the plaintiffs “have established a likelihood of ultimately prevailing” in the case.

Barker will now hear arguments about whether or not to completely overturn Sections 18 and 19 of SEA 590.

— Zach Ammerman