Indiana passed immigration legislation that looked a lot like Arizona’s. Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down that legislation as unconstitutional — the state of Arizona was trying to usurp the prerogatives of the federal government. Prior to that decision, the Indiana Attorney General was fighting the good fight – making its pitch for Indiana’s version of the immigration law. But, when the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision, the writing on the wall was clear, and the Indiana Attorney General declined to keep up a fight that was futile.
Senators Delph, Boots, and Steele apparently want to continue litigating where Attorney General Zoeller has determined further litigation would be wasteful in light of the Supreme Court’s decision. So, they’ve engaged the legal arm of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) – a group about which the Southern Poverty Law Center has a dim view. They’re petitioning the court to intervene and try to defend the parts of the law that the attorney general views as indefensible in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling.
This reminds me a bit of the tension you always see when criminal defense lawyers represent clients who want them to advance implausible legal theories. These criminal defendants are very imaginative, but their legal theories are fantastic and frivolous. So, they feel slighted when their legal counsel, more grounded in reality, has to admit to the court that they don’t have a case.