How many more states will Obama admin sue over “tough” immigration laws?

Posted by: ST on July 8, 2010 at 8:28 am

First, it was Arizona (thanks for the advance notice on that one, Hillary).

Will Rhode Island be next?

How about Utah? Oklahoma? South Carolina?

And California?

And North Carolina?

ST reader Anthony quipped last night on Twitter:

Eventually, they’ll have to sue all 57 states!

Sounds about right.

RSS feed for comments on this post.


12 Responses to “How many more states will Obama admin sue over “tough” immigration laws?”


  1. That’s a good point Sister. The more states that pass immigration laws similar to Arizona, the worse it will look for Obama. He either has to attack all of them, or he has to just shut up about it.

    Maybe the states should get together and file the equivalent of a class action lawsuit against him, Holder, and the feds in general.

  2. Paul says:

    Obama will come out of this with egg on his face ! :d

  3. arcman46 says:

    If I recall the speech correctly, it was more like 59 states. He had “been to, Ugh, 57, ugh, states, ugh, and still, ugh, had, ugh, ugh, Hawaii, ugh, and, ugh, Alaska, ugh, to, ugh, go.”

  4. Neo says:

    It seems that Rhode Island has done pretty much the same as Arizona, by executive order.
    It seems that Rhode Island was previously sued … unsuccessfully.
    Estrada v. State of Rhode Island, No. 09-1149

  5. Zippy says:


  6. Carlos says:

    Eventually Duh-1’s veil of opaque transparency will have to fall and we’ll find out which states are 51 through 57 (or 59, whichever the case may be).

  7. Vatar says:

    [T]his issue of pre-emption works the other direction. Does this mean that state and local police have no jurisdiction to enforce federal drug laws if they don’t violate state or local law? Terrorism? Wire fraud? If a court rules that referrals to federal agencies from state and local law enforcement are unconstitutional on the basis of pre-emption, it will make the Gorelick Wall look like a curb.


  8. Carlos says:

    Unfortunately, Vatar, as with immigration (legal or criminal), the other issues are generally in each state’s interest to aid the feds in enforcing, although some (like Oregon and Californicate) consider fed pot laws as a nuisance instead of laws.

    Howsomever, if the new HC laws are considered, it might be interesting under your scenario to see how the feds would enforce mandatory insurance laws if the states don’t help them.

  9. Jo says:

    Go to LINK

    answer a one question survey on MSNBC and see the results. And did anyone see Goofball Gibbs stammering when the young reporter asked if the ‘sanctuary states’ are breaking the existing federal laws against illegal aliens?! Hilarious. He stammered around and told her he would have to see if he could find an answer for that. Ha!

  10. Sefton says:

    He stammered around and told her he would have to see if he could find an answer for that.

    Jo, I watched that and had a good laugh as well.
    But I’m sure with Holder in charge, we’ll hear soon enough that “sanctuary cities” will be given a federal waiver, or some such b.s. workaround.

  11. Jo says:

    Stefan, I am sure you are right.