Imagine: your family takes a road trip to Zion National Park in Utah. You’re only an hour away and didn’t notice the speed limit was reduced to 65mph. You see the flashing lights of a police cruiser and realize your mistake. Embarrassed, but not concerned, you’ll explain to the officer you’re from out of town and hope the ticket doesn’t cost too much.
The officer approaches the car to collect your license and registration. As you wait with your family, you realize the officer has been in his car for an unusual amount of time. Finally, he comes over and says something about your license not being adequate proof of your immigration status and asks if you’re a citizen of the United States. “Born and raised,” you reply, this being the first time you’ve been asked that question by a policeman. Something about your response, or the way you look, or perhaps your license picture from 20 years ago when you had brown hair instead of gray, makes the officer tell you he has to run some checks on your ID – “standard procedure.” You start to protest, baffled at what you’ve possibly done wrong, as you wait on the side of the road to see what might happen next.
Seem outrageous? Un-American? Unconstitutional? This could happen to you or any other person traveling, living or working in Utah, if Utah’s new immigration enforcement law, H.B. 497, goes into effect this week.
Utah House Bill 497 is the Illegal Immigration Enforcement Act . By imposing complex authorizations and mandates on law enforcement officers to demand documentation reflecting immigration status from individuals they stop, detain, or arrest, H.B. 497 creates an unprecedented burden upon every individual in Utah, citizens and non-citizens alike. During a stop, a person must be able to produce one of to be presumed lawfully present in the country. However, even if an individual has a qualifying document proving his or her citizenship, and even take a person down to the station for an investigation into the person’s citizenship status. If an individual cannot produce a qualifying identity document, law enforcement officers are authorized, and in many cases required, to detain the individual and attempt to verify his or her immigration status.
By mandating that officers inquire about the immigration status of every individual they stop for traffic violations, jaywalking, or even littering, H.B. 497 would fundamentally change the day-to-day operations of local law enforcement. H.B. 497 would undermine the mission of local police to enforce criminal statutes and ordinances by injecting an immigration enforcement directive into every police encounter. , when local police focus on immigration violations, entire segments of the community will be afraid to report crimes. In a state where the rates of serious crimes, such as , officers should not focus on low-level immigration offenses while attention is diverted from serious issues facing their communities.
The ACLU does not want our country to become a place where “show me your papers” is a common police call and racial profiling is sanctioned under the law. That is why last week we and preliminary injunction challenging H.B. 497. Today, the first hearing in the case to block the law will take place in Salt Lake City.
There are many reasons why immigration enforcement is a matter of federal, and not state, authority. Unfortunately, Utah is not alone in its attempt to usurp immigration authority from the federal government. States like Georgia, Indiana and Alabama have plans in the works to , each of which will likely be challenged on the same grounds as . Unless we plan to live in a society where the police can ask us to “show our papers” at any moment, we must not open the door to welcome the sort of police power and disregard for individual rights that laws like Utah’s H.B. 497 would bring.
Learn more about immigrants' rights: Subscribe to our newsletter, , and .
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Civil Liberties
We Need to Know More About State Supreme Court CasesWe Need to Know More About State Supreme Court Cases
State Supreme Courts interpret laws that impact some of the most intimate parts of our lives. Communities have a right to know what’s on the docket. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Civil Liberties
New ACLU Report Reveals Most State Supreme Courts Fail to Meet Key Transparency MeasuresNew ACLU Report Reveals Most State Supreme Courts Fail to Meet Key Transparency Measures
NEW YORK — Nearly half of all state supreme courts across the country fail to regularly post new cases they are considering, with only six meeting four key transparency measures already implemented by the U.S. Supreme Court, according to a new report published today by the American Civil Liberties Union. The report identifies significant steps that state supreme courts should take to inform the public about their cases, which have only grown in importance as the federal judiciary has become more hostile to protecting core rights and advocates have turned to state protections and state court litigation in response. Based on an analysis of the practices and policies of the highest courts in each state, including D.C., the report “Scorecard for State Supreme Court Transparency: How Does Your State Stack Up?” ranks each state supreme court in five tiers based on compliance with four key transparency measures. These measures include posting new cases online in a timely manner, providing timely information about legal issues presented by cases, making dockets accessible and free for the public, and making merits briefing accessible and free for the public. “State courts regularly hear — and are the final word on — cases affecting abortion rights, voting rights, criminal justice reform, and more. Yet, in many instances, the highest state courts do not provide meaningful public access to information about cases affecting the rights and liberties of millions of people. We urge state supreme courts to bring more transparency to the critical work they do,” said Julie Murray, co-director of the ACLU’s State Supreme Court Initiative. “In the face of a federal judiciary increasingly unwilling to protect core rights and an incoming administration that threatens to exacerbate that problem, state courts are an important defense for our liberty. They should be leaders in transparency, too,” said Bridget Lavender, Skadden Fellow with the Initiative. The report emphasizes that state courts “play an outsized role” in many parts of the law, but their ability to “guard our liberties depends in significant part on whether those courts adopt transparent processes.” It further highlights that state supreme courts have led the way on enormously consequential decisions in recent years. In particular, some state supreme courts have recognized the right of same sex couples to marry, and did so long before federal courts. They have also declared the death penalty unconstitutional under state law despite contrary federal law, protected access to reproductive health care as a right even as that right was being stripped away at the federal level, and provided more robust protection to people subject to unreasonable searches and seizures. The report urges state supreme courts to take action to improve their transparency practices, taking notes from the courts that have already implemented these measures. It notes that regularly posting new cases and the issues they represent, and providing timely access to dockets and merits briefing allows the public, the press, and the legal community to track cases as they unfold, identify cases with statewide consequences, and understand what’s at stake. -
Press ReleaseNov 2024
National Security
+2 Issues
ACLU Urges House to Kill Bill that Could Give Trump Admin Power to Crush Dissent and Go After Political EnemiesACLU Urges House to Kill Bill that Could Give Trump Admin Power to Crush Dissent and Go After Political Enemies
WASHINGTON — The American Civil Liberties Union strongly urges the House of Representatives to vote NO on H.R. 9495, the Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act, which would grant Donald Trump and his handpicked secretary of the Treasury power to investigate and effectively shut down any tax-exempt organization — including news outlets, universities, and civil society groups — by stripping them of tax-exempt status based on an unilateral accusation of wrongdoing. “Passing this bill would hand the incoming Trump administration a dangerous new tool it could use to stifle free speech, target political opponents, and punish disfavored groups,” said Kia Hamadanchy, senior policy counsel at ACLU. “The freedom to dissent without fear of government retribution is a vital part of any well-functioning democracy, which is why Congress must block H.R. 9495 before it’s too late.” While there is a 90-day “cure” period in which a designated nonprofit can mount a defense, it is a mere illusion of due process. The government may deny organizations its reasons and evidence against them, leaving the nonprofit unable to rebut allegations. This means that a nonprofit could be left entirely in the dark about what conduct the government believes qualifies as "support," making it virtually impossible to clear its name. Last month, the ACLU and a diverse array of over 130 other tax-exempt organizations — including human rights, reproductive health, and immigrants’ rights groups — wrote to Congress urging them to vote no. The letter also explains that the groups do not oppose the provisions in H.R. 9495 that relate to preventing the IRS from imposing fines and penalties on hostages while they are held abroad. Indeed, these provisions have already passed the Senate on their own, and if the House of Representatives were to pass a version of this bill that did not include the text of H.R. 6408, it could be sent immediately to President Biden for his signature. -
News & CommentaryNov 2024
Civil Liberties
Donald Trump Will Return to the White House in January. The ACLU is Ready.Donald Trump Will Return to the White House in January. The ACLU is Ready.
Starting in 2016, the ACLU filed more than 400 legal actions against Trump and his administration. As Trump returns to the White House, we’re ready to return to the courts and Congress to fight for our civil liberties.