This just in from Judicial Watch:

The United States Supreme Court just handed the American people and the rule of law a tremendous victory in to war to enforce our nation’s laws against illegal immigration…
And thanks to your support, your Judicial Watch was in the middle of this historic battle!

By a 5-3 vote, the High Court has upheld the constitutionality of the “Legal Arizona Workers Act” – a groundbreaking piece of legislation crafted by Judicial Watch client, Arizona State Senate President Russell Pearce.

Senator Pearce’s legislation does two things: It penalizes businesses that knowingly hire illegal aliens; and it requires all Arizona employers to use the federal E-Verify system to confirm the eligibility of new employees (a system that determines if the individual is in the country legally).

It is a tough law aimed directly at the root cause of the illegal immigration scourge affecting our nation…the lure of jobs offered to illegal immigrants by unscrupulous employers who put profits ahead of respect for the law!

This is a huge victory for Judicial Watch supporters and the rule of law, and a huge setback for the Obama administrations’ efforts to gut enforcement of our immigration laws.

This decision will have an enormously positive impact on states across the country seeking to ease the burdens caused by rampant illegal immigration.

State Senate President Pearce carefully crafted this legislation to be entirely consistent with federal law. Sen. Pearce had this to say about this Supreme Court ruling: “My legislation is based on a simple but powerful solution to the illegal immigration crisis – enforce the law. It would be ideal if the federal government would do its job and secure the border. However, in the absence of leadership from Washington, states like Arizona have a responsibility to protect their citizens and uphold the law.”

In ruling for Arizona, the High Court decisively rejected the arguments by the open-borders U.S. Chamber of Commerce and its radical allies (backed by the open-borders Obama administration) that the State of Arizona has no authority to legislate on immigration-related matters which, they had unsuccessfully argued, is the exclusive right of the federal government.

The majority opinion of Chief Justice John Roberts echoed the “friend of the court” brief that Judicial Watch filed on behalf of Senator Pearce when he wrote:

“Arizona has taken the route least likely to cause tension with federal law. It relies solely on the federal government’s own determination of who is an unauthorized alien, and it requires Arizona employers to use the federal government’s own system for checking employee status.”
I cannot overstate the importance of this victory – nor can I understate the importance your past and continued support!

Most importantly, this ruling gives a major “green light” to states across the country to enact similar measures aimed at cracking down on the illegal hiring of illegal immigrants.

We are very pleased that the Supreme Court recognized once again the critical role states must play in enforcing our nation’s immigration laws. The Obama administration’s lax enforcement, sanctuary policies and amnesty only serve to worse the problem.

And the now the U.S. Supreme Court agrees!

Long-time Judicial Watch supporters will remember one of our first major battles back in 2005 when we went to court to block the use of taxpayer funds to support an illegal immigrant “day laborer” site in Virginia.

We took on that case because we believed, and still do, that it is morally and legally wrong to use taxpayer funds to support an activity that violates federal law…the hiring of illegal immigrants.

Ever since we won that battle we have been fighting to overturn “sanctuary” programs at the state and local levels all across the country.

Secondly, the Court’s reasoning in this new E-verify ruling case gives us real hope that down the road it will find that Senator Pearce’s “flagship” illegal immigration enforcement legislation (SB 1070) passes constitutional muster as well.

As you know, Judicial Watch is also representing the entire Arizona State Legislature, as well as Senator Pearce, against Obama administration attacks on SB 1070 (the “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act”).

This legislation enacts a series of law enforcement provisions to protect its citizens from serious public safety concerns driven by illegal immigration. And just like the “Legal Arizona Workers Act,” it is written to complement, not challenge or exceed existing federal immigration law.

The Legislature and the people of Arizona are being opposed in court by the Obama Justice Department, which is arguing that the state can do nothing to help in the enforcement of federal laws against illegal immigration.

They’re trying to tell Arizona: It’s a federal matter, so butt out!

Of course, since the Obama gang is gutting existing federal immigration programs, refusing to deport illegal aliens, pushing back-door “stealth amnesty” measures, and currying favor in advance of 2012 with its radical open-borders allies, what they’re really telling Arizona is “drop dead”!

But the Obama gang is up against Judicial Watch and 240,000 plus supporters now…and we are committed to helping Arizona and other states do everything they can under the Constitution to protect their citizens and help enforce laws against illegal immigration.

Texas Attorney General Defends Students' Constitutional Right To Express Religious Views

Attorney General Abbott files brief asking U.S. Court of Appeals to strike down an unconstitutional court order that violates students� First Amendment rights


CASTROVILLE � Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott today took legal action to defend high school graduates� constitutional rights to freely express their religious beliefs during graduation ceremonies. In an amicus brief filed with the U.S Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the Attorney General explained that a district court in San Antonio improperly required Medina Valley Independent School District to censor its students' graduation speeches and violated students� constitutionally protected First Amendment rights.

"After students worked diligently for four years, federal judges should not threaten graduates with sanctions for simply expressing their personal beliefs during graduation ceremonies," Attorney General Abbott said. "The First Amendment prohibits governments from interfering with Americans' rights to freely express their religious beliefs, yet that is exactly what this misguided court order attempts to achieve. Just as the U.S. Supreme Court has held that Congress can convene each day with a prayer, Medina Valley High School students have a constitutionally protected right to pray during their graduation speeches."

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting free exercise thereof." Because the district court ignores the text of the Constitution, it improperly prohibits Medina Valley High School students from freely expressing religious beliefs during their graduation ceremonies. The Attorney General�s legal brief asks the Fifth Circuit to overturn the legally flawed order and protect the graduation speakers� First Amendment rights.

On May 26, the parents of a Medina Valley High School student filed a lawsuit seeking to prohibit student speakers from expressing religious beliefs during graduation ceremonies. In a section of the lawsuit ironically titled "prayer for relief," the plaintiffs asked the court to enjoin the Medina Valley Independent School District and order the district to pay their attorneys' fees. After a May 31 hearing, U.S. District Judge Fred Biery issued an order requiring that the school district: (1) remove the terms "invocation" and "benediction" from the graduation program; (2) prohibit speakers from asking audience members to "stand," "join in prayer," "bow their heads," end their remarks with "amen," or use the word "prayer;" and (3) "review, and make necessary changes to, the students' revised remarks to ensure those changes comply with the court's decision.

The Attorney General�s brief asks the Fifth Circuit to overturn the district court's order and allow student speakers to deliver their original graduation remarks without suffering unconstitutional, court-ordered censorship. As the Attorney General�s brief explains: "[T]he district court ordered Medina Valley to abridge the free speech and free exercise rights of its graduation speakers" and threatened Medina Valley officials with incarceration and other sanctions if they fail to commit these First Amendment violations."

The Attorney General's brief also defended the school district, which has been improperly ordered to censor its students' remarks: "Medina Valley's policy permitting students to prepare and deliver opening and closing remarks at graduation is constitutional, even when in practice those remarks may address the speaker's religious faith or contain a prayer. And that is no less true merely because the graduation programs traditionally call those remarks an "invocation" and "benediction."

According to the Attorney General�s legal brief, the district court�s order threatens all Texas students� constitutional rights: "[T]he shadow of uncertainty cast by the district court's erroneous decision extends far beyond Castroville, Texas." Further, the Attorney General explained: "[T]he district court�s ruling misapplies the Establishment Clause in a way that threatens the rights of Texas students to freely express their religious beliefs in public settings."

On Thursday, Medina Valley High School Valedictorian Angela Hildenbrand also asked the Fifth Circuit to overturn the district court's order. The Class of 2011�s top student filed a brief arguing: "The District Court's censorship of her words prior to their utterance is an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech. The speech enjoined by the District Court is protected by the First Amendment's Speech and Free Exercise Clauses.� According to court documents filed on the valedictorian's behalf, "Ms. Hildenbrand intends that her graduation address include words on permissible subjects from a religious viewpoint. During her address, based upon her sincerely held religious beliefs, she desires to pray."

The State's action in Christa Schultz, et al. v. Medina Valley Independent School District reflects Attorney General Abbott's latest effort to defend public acknowledgments of religion. After Attorney General Abbott submitted a legal brief joined by all 50 state attorneys general, in January 2009, a federal judge cleared the way for President Barack Obama to include prayers during his Presidential Inauguration. In a 2003 amicus brief that was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court " also on behalf of all 50 states" Attorney General Abbott successfully thwarted a Dallas atheist�s attempt to remove the words "under God" from the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance. In 2007, the Attorney General defeated a separate lawsuit that attempted to remove the words "under God" from the Texas Pledge of Allegiance.

Attorney General Abbott has personally defended public acknowledgements of religion before the U.S. Supreme Court, where he defended the State�s Ten Commandments monument, which stands between the Texas Capitol and the Supreme Court on the Texas Capitol grounds. In that case, Van Orden v. Perry, the plaintiff sought to remove the Ten Commandments from the Texas Capitol, but Attorney General Abbott successfully argued that the monument was entirely constitutional.

Quotes from the Attorney General�s brief:

"[A]s the Supreme Court has noted, "[w]e are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being." Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 313 (1952).

�Government acknowledgments of religion such as� offered prayers serve the constitutionally legitimate purposes of �solemnizing public occasions, expressing confidence in the future, and encouraging the recognition of what is worthy of appreciation in society.� Lynch, 465 U.S. at 693 (O�Connor, J., concurring).�

"First Amendment rights, applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment, are available to teachers and students. It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the school house gate.� Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969).

In a "limited public forum," which exists where a public school endeavors to allow students to express their own views, the State "must not discriminate against speech on the basis of viewpoint." Good News Club v. Milford Cent. Sch., 533 U.S. 98, 106 (2001).