-
Sen. Russell Pearce leads Republicans in introducing SB1070
Pearce states the intent of SB1070 is to “make attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local government agencies in Arizona.” -
Gov. Jan Brewer signs SB 1070
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed SB 1070 into law -
Gov. Brewer issues Executive Order 2010-09
Requires that the Arizona Peace Officers standards and training board to establish training to ensure law enforcement officials apply SB1070 consistent with federal laws regulating. -
Arizona Approves HB 2162
Intended to address the racial profiling concerns, this amended SB 1070 and specified that law enforcement cannot consider certain attributes of a person when implementing the provisions of the original law. -
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) challenges SB1070
They argue that the history of enforcement by the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office has shown that it cannot be allowed with it singling out racial and ethnic minorities. They mention that SB1070 takes over the federal government's exclusive authority over immigration laws. -
Obama Admin. Blocks Law
Obama administration sues in District Court, arguing that SB1070 is "preempted by federal immigration laws and is therefore unconstitutional." -
Fed. Judge Rules in Favor of Block
District Court Judge Susan Bolton blocks four of the law’s provisions the day before the law was supposed to take affect. -
SB1070 STARTS
The law takes place, and the day before SB1070 took effect, federal judge issued a preliminary injuction -
Appeals Court Agrees with Block
1 of 3 judges writes that the Arizona law amounts to one entry into the foreign policy by a single state. It also has the “potential to lead to 50 different state immigration schemes piling on top of the federal scheme.” -
AZ Files Appeal with the Supreme Court
Arizona argued that the law does not conflict with federal law or policy. They also argue that the state is seeking to cooperate with federal immigration efforts. -
Supreme Court
U.S. Supreme Court justices hear arguments for or against SB1070 in United States v. Arizona. The justices seem sympathetic to the state law’s core provision, which requires police officers to inquire about people’s legal status if there is suspicion a person is in the country illegally. -
Borelli's Statement
Borelli claims that the law resulted in a 43% in crime decrease, later reports show that only about 13% has actually declined. Although, Arizona's crime has been declining ever since 2002. -
Injunction Released
The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on the injuncton was released. The law is upholded, but 3 of it's provisions are taken out. -
Valle Del Sol Plaintiffs seek injunction to another provision of the law
Plaintiffs claim that Section 2(B) of SB1070 would be unconstitutional if implemented. They claim that the section of the law is driven by racial discrimination. -
Judge Bolton denies the injunction of Valle Del Sol
Judge Bolton denies the motion in Valle del Sol to enjoin Section 2(B), citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the controversial provision. She enjoins SB1070’s anti-harboring provision. -
Supreme Court refuses to hear an appeal of SB1070
The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of a blocked provision of Arizona's 2010 immigration enforcement law, dealing another blow to Gov. Jan Brewer in her effort to defend the law. -
The judge's decision
Judge Bolton rules for Arizona in some counts, but also permanently stops SB1070’s day labor provisions, which make it unlawful for anyone to hire a person while his or her vehicle is impeding traffic. Bolton cites the 9th Circuit’s reasoning, which pans the law’s labor day provisions for drawing “content-based distinctions that appear motivated by a desire to eliminate the livelihoods of undocumented immigrants rather than to address Arizona’s interest in traffic safety.” -
SB1070 Finally Comes to an End
Arizona Attorney General and plaintiffs in Valle del Sol arrive at a settlement that defines limits when enforcing SB1070 sections 2(B) and 2(D). The Supreme Court concluded that delaying a persons release due to their immigration status "would raise constitutional concerns."
