Obama administration objects to Arizona's license denial

Attorneys for the Department of Justice told the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that Arizona has no legal right to decide that some people the federal government allows to remain in this country are “authorized” to be here, while others are not.

The lawyers said that as far as the federal government is concerned, all are equal under the law and all are entitled to the same rights and privileges, including licenses.

“Arizona may not substitute its judgment for the federal government’s when it comes to establishing classifications of alien status,” Assistant Attorney General Lindsey Powell wrote for the administration.

She said Arizona has shown no “substantial state purpose” in issuing rules to decide some people not in this country legally are entitled to licenses and some are not, which she said means Gov. Jan Brewer’s edict is “pre-empted by federal law.”

The brief was submitted in support of a lawsuit filed by immigrant-rights groups on behalf of participants in the administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as “dreamers.”

It puts the federal government on record as telling the court to void the 2012 executive order issued by Brewer directing the state Department of Transportation not to give licenses to DACA participants.

Tuesday’s filing drew an angry reaction from Andrew Wilder, the governor’s spokesman.

“Rather than secure U.S. borders or enforce existing federal immigration laws, the Obama administration continues to afford preference and privileges to people who enter our country illegally and whose presence is unauthorized,” he said in a prepared statement.

He said the fact the president has agreed on his own to let certain people not here legally remain and yet challenge Arizona’s authority to deny them licenses “demonstrates how unhinged and lawless this liberal administration has become.”

Wilder also said Arizona is not going to change its policy without a fight.

“States, not the Obama administration, have the right to determine who is issued a driver’s license,” he said.

Powell admitted states can have laws that make access to a license contingent on how the federal government classifies someone’s presence in the country, and that states have “significant discretion” in deciding what documents are necessary to prove eligibility.

But what Arizona is doing, Powell told the court, is manufacturing its own artificial classification “not supported by federal law.”

The DACA program is available to those brought to this country illegally as children but who had not yet turned 30 when the president announced it. They are allowed to stay and work for two years, which is renewable if they meet other conditions.

So far more than 24,000 Arizona residents have applied for DACA status, with 21,000 already accepted into the program.

In directing they be denied licenses, Brewer cited a 1996 state law that says licenses are available only to those whose presence in the country is “authorized by federal law,” and that the president’s decision not to deport DACA participants doesn’t make their presence legal.

Powell pointed out that the state has granted licenses to some individuals here illegally based on the same documents used by DACA participants who are being denied, and she said the state has not shown a legitimate reason for the distinction.

The lawsuit originated with a filing by civil-rights organizations that challenged Brewer’s order. While the case is pending, the appeals court is being asked to order the state to issue licenses on the grounds that those being denied are being irreparably harmed.

In writing earlier this year for the three-judge panel of the appeals court, which previously ruled the state should issue the licenses, Judge Harry Pregerson said the inability to legally drive makes it more difficult, if not impossible, for program participants to hold jobs — a specific right they get being in the DACA program.

Brewer and the state have asked the full court to reconsider that order.