Arizona Supreme Court dismisses cities' challenge to constitutionality of budget provisions
PHOENIX - The Arizona Supreme Court late Wednesday dismissed the League of Arizona Cities and Towns' constitutional challenge to budget law provisions on immigration enforcement and other topics.
The league argued that enactment of the provisions was unconstitutional because they fell outside budget-related topics listed for special session action and because unrelated legislation was packaged in one bill.
The Supreme Court's brief order said the case, which had been filed directly with the high court, can be started over in a lower court.
The league "did not establish circumstances sufficient to render it proper for the original special action petition to be brought to this court," the order said.
A new case filed in trial court would have to pass through several layers of the state court system before any constitutional questions are resolved. That process would take at least several months and possibly a year or two.
The outright dismissal of the challenge was unexpected. It was decided during a private monthly conference of the justices on Tuesday.
The justices had indicated on an agenda that they planned only to consider the league's request for a stay blocking implementation of the provisions, pending a decision later on the constitutionality question.
The court had scheduled that consideration for the justices' January conference.
Ken Strobeck, the league's executive director, said officials were "shocked and disappointed" by the court's action and hadn't immediately decided whether to restart the case in trial court.
(More)
The immigration enforcement provisions toughen and expand existing prohibitions on providing services to illegal immigrants. Other challenged provisions deal with development impact fees and building codes.
All were included in a bill approved during a summer special session largely devoted to the state's ongoing budget crisis.
The legislation took effect Nov. 24.
The league argued that enactment of the provisions was unconstitutional because they fell outside budget-related topics listed for special session action and because unrelated legislation was packaged in one bill.
The Supreme Court's brief order said the case, which had been filed directly with the high court, can be started over in a lower court.
The league "did not establish circumstances sufficient to render it proper for the original special action petition to be brought to this court," the order said.
A new case filed in trial court would have to pass through several layers of the state court system before any constitutional questions are resolved. That process would take at least several months and possibly a year or two.
The outright dismissal of the challenge was unexpected. It was decided during a private monthly conference of the justices on Tuesday.
The justices had indicated on an agenda that they planned only to consider the league's request for a stay blocking implementation of the provisions, pending a decision later on the constitutionality question.
The court had scheduled that consideration for the justices' January conference.
Ken Strobeck, the league's executive director, said officials were "shocked and disappointed" by the court's action and hadn't immediately decided whether to restart the case in trial court.
(More)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment