It may not be as glorious a smackdown as Kitzmiller v. Dover was (there are very few judges as marvelously scathing as John E. Jones III was in that decision), but it's damn well good enough to celebrate.
First, the United States argues that this provision “necessarily places lawfully present aliens (and even U.S. citizens) in continual jeopardy of having to demonstrate their lawful status to non-federal officials.” The United States further asserts that there are numerous categories of lawfully-present aliens “who will not have readily available documentation to demonstrate that fact,” including foreign visitors from Visa Waiver Program countries, individuals who have applied for asylum but not yet received an adjudication, people with temporary protected status, U and T non-immigrant visa applicants, or people who have self-petitioned for relief under the Violence Against Women Act. Also, the United States points out that United States citizens are not required to carry identification, and some citizens might not have easy access to a form of identification that would satisfy the requirement of Section 2(B).
Couple this with the injunction preventing Brewer from denying domestic partnership benefits to gay couples in the name of budget cuts and it's been a distinct setback for bigotry in Arizona.
(It amuses me deeply that the judge stated you can't cut benefits for same-sex domestic partners since they can't get married and therefore retain the benefits, but you can cut benefits for opposite-sex couples because they could theoretically get married. And it's the latter category that actually makes up the vast majority of those affected. To those who claim same-sex domestic partnership/civil unions would be "separate but equal": there's a bunch of heterosexual domestic partners that would disagree with you.)
First, the United States argues that this provision “necessarily places lawfully present aliens (and even U.S. citizens) in continual jeopardy of having to demonstrate their lawful status to non-federal officials.” The United States further asserts that there are numerous categories of lawfully-present aliens “who will not have readily available documentation to demonstrate that fact,” including foreign visitors from Visa Waiver Program countries, individuals who have applied for asylum but not yet received an adjudication, people with temporary protected status, U and T non-immigrant visa applicants, or people who have self-petitioned for relief under the Violence Against Women Act. Also, the United States points out that United States citizens are not required to carry identification, and some citizens might not have easy access to a form of identification that would satisfy the requirement of Section 2(B).
Couple this with the injunction preventing Brewer from denying domestic partnership benefits to gay couples in the name of budget cuts and it's been a distinct setback for bigotry in Arizona.
(It amuses me deeply that the judge stated you can't cut benefits for same-sex domestic partners since they can't get married and therefore retain the benefits, but you can cut benefits for opposite-sex couples because they could theoretically get married. And it's the latter category that actually makes up the vast majority of those affected. To those who claim same-sex domestic partnership/civil unions would be "separate but equal": there's a bunch of heterosexual domestic partners that would disagree with you.)
cannot stop grinning
WTF?