See also:
Selected list of filings (full text below):
July 6, 2010 Complaint: The United States filed a civil action for declaratory and injunctive relief, asking the Court to permanently enjoin the enforcement of S.B. 1070 because it is preempted by federal law and therefore violates the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.
July 7, 2010 Motion for Preliminary Injunction: The United States filed a motion to preliminarily enjoin enforcement of S.B. 1070 to preserve the status quo until the matter can be adjudicated. [There were 10 exhibits filed with this motion, along with the text of the proposed order.]
July 22, 2010 Arizona's Response to Motion for PI: Arizona argued that the plaintiff would suffer no harm if SB 1070 is implemented and is not entitled to an injunction because it has not met its burden of establishing SB 1070 as unconstitutional.
July 22, 2010 Hearings: Judge Bolton heard arguments from the attorneys in the Friendly House case at 10am (re defendant Governor Brewer's motion to dismiss), and from the attorneys in the DoJ lawsuit at 1:30pm (preliminary injunction hearing). Read more:
July 26, 2010 Motion to Dismiss: Arizona argued that the U.S.'s complaint failed to state a claim upon relief may be granted: "Plaintiff's challenges to SB 1070 either misconstrue the applicable law or improperly rely on hypothetical scenarios that cannot, as a matter of law, sustain plaintiff's facial challenge to the Act."
July 27, 2010 Transcript of Preliminary Injunction Hearing Filed: Before the Honorable Susan R. Bolton, held in Phoenix on July 22, 2010 at 1:28 p.m.
July 28, 2010 Order: U.S. District Court Judge Bolton issued an order preliminarily enjoining the state of Arizona and Governor Brewer from enforcing the most controversial section of the law. Judge Bolton's order is below. For further information, read these stories:
July 29, 2010 Preliminary Injunction Appeal: Defendants Governor Brewer and the State of Arizona filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from the District Court's July 28 order, preliminarily enjoining enforcement of specified sections of SB 1070.
Aug. 27, 2010 U.S. Response in Opposition to Arizona's Motion to Dismiss: Because the Court already determinated that the U.S. presented a viable constitutional challenge when it granted its motion for PI and because the Complaint has otherwise sufficiently stated a claim with respect to the sections of S.B. 1070 against which the U.S. did not seek a PI, the Court should deny Arizona's motion to dismiss.
Sept. 10, 2010 Arizona's Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss: Arizona argued that the U.S. did not adresss all of its arguments raised in its motion.
Dec. 10, 2010 Order: Judge Bolton granted in part and denied in part Arizona's Motion to Dismiss and granted U.S. 30 days to file any amended Complaint.
Feb. 10, 2011 Arizona's Answer and Counterclaims: Arizona argued that the "federal government is not complying with its constitutional and statutory duty to protect Arizona and its citizens from the overwhelming problems associated with the invasion of illegal aliens into Arizona. Arizona brings thses counterclaims to address the 'rampant illegal immigration, escalating drug and human trafficking crimes, and serious public safety concerns' noted by many, including this Court. See Order at 1, July 28, 2010, ECF No. 87." [at page 16]
April 12, 2011 US' Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims and Memo of Law in Support Thereof: The U.S. argued that Arizona had attempted to recast the justifications they advanced in defense of S.B. 1070 as claims against the federal government--recycling a series of claims that Arizona brought against the U.S. in 1994 that were rejected both by this Court and the Ninth Circuit. In addition, the U.S. argued that Arizona raised generalized allegations and questions of a political nature, rather than a colorable constitutional or statutory claim.
June 13, 2011 Arizona's Response to Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims and Memo of Law in Support Thereof: Arizona argued that the Counterclaims were necessary to help relieve Arizona from the overwhelming burden imposed upon it by its illegal immigration crisis and the Government's inaction and nonenforcement.
July 12, 2011 US' Reply in Support of Their Motion to Dismiss Counterclaims: The U.S. argued that Arizona used its Counterclaim as a vehicle to re-litigate a past loss. The U.S.' affirmative suit to prevent enforcement of a preempted state law does nothing to alter the binding Ninth Circuit precedent on the precise claims now brought by Arizona. And Arizona's statutory claims seek general orders and declarations that would ignore Congressional intent and withhold from the U.S. the discretion that is legally vested in its executive agencies.
Oct. 21, 2011 Order: The Court granted the U.S.' Motion to Dismiss and dismisses Arizona's Counterclaims in their entirety.
♦
Sept. 18, 2012 Order: Pursuant to the stipulation between the parties and the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492 (2012), the Court ordered that the preliminary injunction of Section 2(B) of S.B. 1070 (as amended by House Bill 2162), codified at A.R.S. 11-1051(B), which this Court entered on July 28, 2010, ECF No. 87, is hereby dissolved. The Court further ordered that Sections 3, 5(C), and 6 of S.B. 1070 are hereby permanently enjoined.
 |  |  |  |
© The Regents of the University of California. UCLA School of Law. All Rights Reserved.