Judge blocks important parts of Georgia’s immigration law

Protesters gather outside the Georgia governor’s office in May as HB 87 was passed.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

  • The state law is part of the broader statewide immigration debate
  • Georgia officials say they will appeal the verdict
  • The judge says law enforcement officials are unable to enforce two sections of the law
  • Most of the provisions of the law will be able to continue

Atlanta (CNN) – A federal judge on Monday issued an injunction blocking key provisions of a new Georgia law aimed at cracking down on illegal immigration while other parts of the law move forward.

The bulk of the law, known as HB 87, was due to go into effect Friday.

US District Judge Thomas Thrash Jr.’s ruling blocks enforcement of two of the most controversial sections of the law.

“State and local law enforcement officers and officials have no authority to arrest, detain or prosecute anyone based on Sections 7 and 8 of HB 87 while this injunction remains in effect,” Thrash ruled.

These sections would allow police to inquire about immigration status when questioning suspects in certain criminal investigations. They would also punish people who knowingly transport or harbor illegal immigrants while committing a crime. Something like speeding or riding without proper gear could constitute a crime.

Judge blocks important parts of Georgia’s immigration law

April 2011: GA passes immigration law

Judge blocks important parts of Georgia’s immigration law

Protest against Georgia’s immigration law

Judge blocks important parts of Georgia’s immigration law

Georgia Mayor Struggles With New Law

“The apparent intent of the legislature is to create such a climate of hostility, fear, suspicion and insecurity that all illegal aliens will leave Georgia,” Thrash wrote.

In his 45-page ruling, the judge cited a previous court ruling that injunctions are in the public interest “when civil rights are at stake.” He also wrote that state officials were attempting to override the federal immigration enforcement agency.

“I’m very fortunate, as are everyone who believes the Constitution matters,” said Charles Kuck, an Atlanta attorney whose firm represented some of the plaintiffs.

He said the suspended provisions were poorly written and it was unclear how they would have been enforced had they been allowed to move forward.

Although the verdict was hailed as a victory by plaintiffs, Thrash also dismissed a number of their arguments at the state’s request, a point emphasized by Georgia Attorney General Sam Olens shortly after the decision.

“I appreciate the speed with which Richter Thrash ruled given the complexity of the issues. I am pleased with the plaintiffs’ dismissal of the 4th Amendment, 14th Amendment, travel rights and Georgia’s constitutional complaints — even after that, 21 of the 23 sections of HB 87 will go into effect as planned,” Olens wrote in a statement.

Part of the law that is yet to go into effect is a provision that would allow workers convicted of using fake IDs to search for a job to be sentenced to 15 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. The law will also require people applying for public services to present certain types of identification.

Olens said his office will appeal the judge’s decision regarding Sections 7 and 8.

Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal’s office, which supports the law, also interfered in the judge’s decision.

“Beyond refusing to help with our state’s illegal immigration problem, the federal government is determined to be a hindrance. The state of Georgia has closely aligned its immigration law with existing federal laws and court decisions,” said Brian Robinson, the governor’s deputy chief of staff for communications. “Georgians can rest assured that this fight will not end here.”

The Georgia lawsuit is the latest battle in a nationwide skirmish between state and federal officials over who controls immigration enforcement.

Arizona’s controversial anti-illegal immigration law catapulted the issue onto the national stage last year, prompting a lawsuit from the US Department of Justice, which argues the law is unconstitutional.

In April, a three-judge panel of the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the Justice Department and opposed Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, who signed Arizona law into law last year. Brewer announced last month that the state would appeal directly to the US Supreme Court.

CNN’s Gustavo Valdes and Dana Ford contributed to this report.