Justice Dept. asks judge to force Ariz. sheriff to turn over documents in civil-rights probe

.
Published September 13, 2010 | Associated Press

The Justice Department has asked a federal judge in Arizona to force Maricopa County Sheriff Joe  Arpaio  and his office to provide full and immediate access to records and facilities for a civil-rights investigation without going to trial.

The motion for summary judgment filed Monday also asks the court to force the sheriff's office to comply with all future requests involving the probe.

Earlier this month, the Justice Department filed an unprecedented lawsuit against Arpaio's office for refusing to turn over documents or allow federal officials to evaluate jails and interview staff.

The sheriff's office has challenged whether the Justice Department is entitled to everything it has requested, such as records on booking procedures, language services and arrests.

___

Information from: The Arizona Republic, http://www.azcentral.com


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/09/13/justice-dept-asks-judge-force-ariz-sheriff-turn-documents-civil-rights-probe/
.

States Join Legal Brief Supporting Ariz. Immigration Law as Donations Roll Into Gov. Brewer's Defense Fund

.
Published September 04, 2010 | Associated Press

PHOENIX -- Nearly a dozen states have filed a legal brief in support of Arizona's controversial immigration  law.

A"friend of the court" brief filed with the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday argues that a federal judge was wrong to block implementation of key provisions of the law.

The brief submitted by Michigan Attorney General Michael Cox argues that the judge used the wrong legal standard to rule on the U.S. Justice Department's request for a preliminary injunction.

It also says the judge erred in ruling that the law interferes with the executive branch's immigration enforcement priorities.

Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas and Virginia joined in the filing.

In addition to the legal brief, a Wyoming man has given more than $1.5 million to help defend Arizona's controversial immigration enforcement measure in court, Gov. Jan Brewer's office said Thursday.

The contribution from Timothy Mellon of Saratoga is the largest to Brewer's defense fund, which has amassed more than $3.6 million from 41,000 donors nationwide. Mellon could not immediately be reached for comment.

The latest legal bills released Thursday show Brewer's office has spent more than $440,000 for the first two months of defending the law.

The bills, obtained through a public records request by The Associated Press, are for work performed through June by Phoenix law firm Snell & Wilmer. They do not cover July hearings in federal court before a judge Susan Bolton temporarily blocked enforcement of the law's most controversial provisions.

Brewer has appealed Bolton's order to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Her office is defending the state against seven lawsuits challenging Arizona's law, including cases filed by the U.S. Justice of Department, civil rights groups and two police officers.

Bolton has dismissed two of the cases.

"The fees incurred have been, and will continue to be, sizeable," Brewer spokesman Paul Senseman said, noting there have been more than 900 legal filings totaling more than 12,000 pages.

Arizona's law would generally require officers enforcing other measures to check the immigration status of people they suspect are illegal immigrants.

.

Arizona Hits Back at Immigration Ruling as 'Wrong' on Law

.

Arizona Files Legal Brief Hitting Back at Federal Ruling Against State's Immigration Law

Published August 26, 2010 | FoxNews.com  

PHOENIX -- Gov. Jan Brewer's lawyers on Thursday filed the first brief in their appeal of a ruling that put the most controversial elements of Arizona's new immigration law on hold.

The governor says the federal ruling blocking portions of Arizona's controversial immigration law "has caused irreparable harm" to the state's residents.

Brewer wants the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco to reverse the ruling U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton made last month.

The governor's office says Bolton abused her discretion by applying the wrong legal standards and basing her ruling on the federal government's speculation that it would be harmed by Arizona's law. Brewer says the judge ignored key provisions of federal law that allow states to enforce immigration law.

"The decision to suspend portions of SB 1070 has caused irreparable harm to the safety and well-being of Arizona's citizens who continue to suffer every day that the federal government refuses to do its job," Brewer said in a written statement.

The U.S. Justice Department went to court in a bid to invalidate the law.

The Justice Department had no immediate comment Thursday.

Bolton blocked provisions of the law that requires immigrants to obtain or carry immigration registration papers and that require police, while enforcing other laws, to question people's immigration status if there is a reasonable suspicion they're in the country illegally.

But the judge let other portions take effect late last month, such a ban on blocking traffic when people seek or offer day-labor services on streets, and amendments to existing state immigration laws.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.
.

Law Takes Effect, Ariz. Heads Back to Court

.
- FoxNews.com, July 29, 2010

Arizona's Altered Immigration Law Takes Effect, State Heads Back to Court

Arizona's court-altered illegal immigration law went into effect just after midnight Wednesday, hours after a federal judge blocked its most controversial provisions -- including on-the-spot police checks of suspected illegal immigrants.

Soon after Judge Susan Bolton's decision was announced, a spokesman for Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said the state will appeal the ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco on Thursday, asking the appellate court for a swift decision to lift the injunction and allow the blocked provisions to take effect.

Brewer vowed to take the case "all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary," in a legal process that could take years to unravel, leaving other states considering similar laws in a legislative limbo.

While opponents of Arizona's strict immigration law are claiming victory after Wednesday's ruling, there's still plenty left in the state legislation that supporters are cheering.

As the case is litigated, Arizona will be able to block state officials from so-called "sanctuary city" policies limiting enforcement of federal law; require that state officials work with federal officials on illegal immigration; allow civil suits over sanctuary cities; and to make it a crime to pick up day laborers.

"We have a big problem with day laborers standing on the street disrupting traffic, disrupting communities, scaring people, and that part of the law withstood constitutionality," Arizona state Rep. John Kavanagh told Fox News. "We'll be able to clean up that mess."

Kavanagh also praised the other sections of the law that were not blocked.

"I think it is a powerful deterrent effect and this is not going to be settled for years," he said. "So while we might not have as strong a deterrent as we had yesterday, it is still something for illegals to think about when they are looking for places to go."

State Senator Russell Pearce, the law's chief author, said he likes that the state will be able enforce a provision that bars local governments from limiting enforcement of federal immigration laws.

"Striking down these sanctuary city policies has always been the No. 1 priority," he said

Pearce said that part of Bolton's ruling removes what he calls "political handcuffs" from law enforcement officers whose superiors put restraints on their enforcement of immigration laws. He predicted the battle over the law would eventually end up in the Supreme Court, with Arizona prevailing.

"We will appeal this immediately and we will win on appeal," he told the Arizona Republic. "This will be to the Supreme Court eventually, and I expect a 5-4 decision in our favor, perhaps even 6-3."

The remaining provisions, many of them procedural and revisions to an Arizona immigration statute, took effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday.

Still, many supporters were not pleased that the judge blocked the most controversial sections of the law. The partial injunction prevents Arizona from requiring police officers to determine the immigration status of anyone they stop or arrest. It also strikes down the provision making it a crime not to carry immigration registration papers and the provision that makes it a crime for an illegal immigrant to seek or perform work.

"We are deeply disappointed that she views that the enforcement of law would impose a burden on the federal government," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told Fox News. "The federal government is supposed to carry out its responsibilities of securing our borders. It's really disappointing."

"I think key provisions have been removed. Let's be honest about it," he said. "But also, the upshot of this is we gotta get the border secured. … Rather than wasting their time on all of this court stuff, all they had to do was give us the assets necessary to get our borders secured."

U.S. Rep. Harry Mitchell, R-Ariz., said the ruling should not give Washington any kind of excuse not to address immigration.

"There are no victors today, except those who want to use this protracted litigation as a means to grandstand and score political points, instead of actually rolling up their sleeves and getting to work to help fix the problem," he said in a written statement."

"I believe that if the new state law spurs Washington to act, then it is a good thing," he said. "But make no mistake: neither the state law, nor the lawsuit to overturn it – nor today's temporary injunction – will fix the problem, secure our border, or fix a broken immigration system."

To Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio told KTAR.com that the ruling is not a "defeat by any means."

"We will still do what we have been doing for the past three years," he said in response to the ruling. "On employer sanction state law, on human smuggling state law," he said.

But the decision was seen as a defeat for Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who is running for another term in November and has seen her political fortunes rise because of the law's popularity among conservatives.

But her opponent, state Attorney General Terry Goddard, pounced.

"Jan Brewer played politics with immigration, and she lost," the Democrat said. "It is time to look beyond election-year grandstanding and begin to repair the damage to Arizona's image and economy."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.
..

Gov. Brewer to Supporters, July 28, 9:45pm

.

To Supporters of Arizona :    

The United States District Court of Arizona ruled against significant parts of Arizona’s immigration law hours ago. This decision is being hailed by those who do not want to enforce our laws.

While the decision is disappointing, it is not the end. We plan to appeal the court’s ruling, and I remain confident we will ultimately prevail.

In order to best continue the fight for our immigration law, we must step up and expand our efforts.

That’s why I’m asking you to make a secure, online contribution to the Republican Governors Association right now by CLICKING HERE.  (https://www.rga.org/arizona/)

The RGA is the only organization exclusively dedicated to electing governors like me who are not afraid to do what it takes to protect our citizens and make our borders safe.

The RGA has stood by my side and has my complete confidence - I hope they will have yours too. We know liberals in Washington, D.C., the East Coast media, and people like Al Sharpton will continue to do everything possible to distort what our law does and smear anyone who endorses it, which is why it is vital you support the RGA.

The RGA helps governors like me who are willing to tell the federal government “enough is enough.” Simply put, the RGA is a key partner and with me on the frontlines.

Please support the RGA by contributing $100, $50, $25, $10 or whatever you can afford today. I know times are tough, but every dollar makes a tremendous difference. Please CLICK HERE to donate right now.

With your support, I am confident we will prevail.

Sincerely,

Gov. Jan Brewer

P.S. Our appeal will occur very soon. Please give to the RGA immediately: https://www.rga.org/arizona/

Corporate Contributions are accepted.

Contributions to the RGA are not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes. Contributions will not be used in connection with any federal election activity. Contributions to the RGA may be used in one of the RGA's affiliated state PACs. Contributions from foreign nationals are prohibited.

Paid for by Republican Governors Association
.

Arizona Immigration Law Still a 'Powerful Deterrent'

.

- FoxNews.com, July 28, 2010 

While opponents of Arizona's strict immigration law are claiming victory in a federal ruling Wednesday that blocked most of the crackdown hours before its enactment, there's still plenty left in the state legislation that supporters are cheering.

As the case is litigated, Arizona will be able to block state officials from so-called "sanctuary city" policies limiting enforcement of federal law; require that state officials work with federal officials on illegal immigration; allow civil suits over sanctuary cities; and to make it a crime to pick up day laborers.

"We have a big problem with day laborers standing on the street disrupting traffic, disrupting communities, scaring people, and that part of the law withstood constitutionality," Arizona state Rep. John Kavanagh told Fox News. "We'll be able to clean up that mess."

Kavanagh also praised the other sections of the law that were not blocked.

"I think it is a powerful deterrent effect and this is not going to be settled for years," he said. "So while we might not have as strong a deterrent as we had yesterday, it is still something for illegals to think about when they are looking for places to go."

State Senator Russell Pearce, the law's chief author, said he likes that the state will be able enforce a provision that bars local governments from limiting enforcement of federal immigration laws.

"Striking down these sanctuary city policies has always been the No. 1 priority," Pearce said.

Pearce said that part of Judge Susan Bolton's ruling removes what he calls "political handcuffs" from law enforcement officers whose superiors put restraints on their enforcement of immigration laws.

The remaining provisions, many of them procedural and revisions to an Arizona immigration statute, will take effect at 12:01 a.m. Thursday.

Still, many supporters were not pleased that the judge blocked the most controversial sections of the law. The partial injunction prevents Arizona from requiring police officers to determine the immigration status of anyone they stop or arrest. It also strikes down the provision making it a crime not to carry immigration registration papers and the provision that makes it a crime for an illegal immigrant to seek or perform work.

"We are deeply disappointed that she views that the enforcement of law would impose a burden on the federal government," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told Fox News. "The federal government is supposed to carry out its responsibilities of securing our borders. It's really disappointing."

"I think key provisions have been removed. Let's be honest about it," he said. "But also, the upshot of this is we gotta get the border secured. … Rather than wasting their time on all of this court stuff, all they had to do was give us the assets necessary to get our borders secured."

U.S. Rep. Harry Mitchell, R-Ariz., said the ruling should not give Washington any kind of excuse not to address immigration.

"There are no victors today, except those who want to use this protracted litigation as a means to grandstand and score political points, instead of actually rolling up their sleeves and getting to work to help fix the problem," he said in a written statement."

"I believe that if the new state law spurs Washington to act, then it is a good thing," he said. "But make no mistake: neither the state law, nor the lawsuit to overturn it – nor today's temporary injunction – will fix the problem, secure our border, or fix a broken immigration system."

To Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio told KTAR.com that the ruling is not a "defeat by any means."

"We will still do what we have been doing for the past three years," he said in response to the ruling. "On employer sanction state law, on human smuggling state law," he said.

But the decision was seen as a defeat for Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who is running for another term in November and has seen her political fortunes rise because of the law's popularity among conservatives.

She has vowed to take the case "all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary."

But her opponent, state Attorney General Terry Goddard, pounced.

"Jan Brewer played politics with immigration, and she lost," the Democrat said. "It is time to look beyond election-year grandstanding and begin to repair the damage to Arizona's image and economy."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.
.

Illegals Running before Law takes Effect

.
Reuter's sympathetic view uses the term "Migrant" rather than "Illegal Immigrant" and focuses on self-righteous slants rather than the true reason many are leaving; ie, they have family members that are involved in crime and they know they might easily be picked up. Being "cornered" as one person puts it, can only happen if one is doing things they shouldn't. 

Migrants sell up and flee Arizona ahead of crackdown 
By Tim Gaynor

PHOENIX | Sun Jul 25, 2010 1:43pm EDT

PHOENIX (Reuters) - Nicaraguan mother Lorena Aguilar hawks a television set and a few clothes on the baking sidewalk outside her west Phoenix apartment block.

A few paces up the street, her undocumented Mexican neighbor Wendi Villasenor touts a kitchen table, some chairs and a few dishes as her family scrambles to get out of Arizona ahead of a looming crackdown on illegal immigrants.

"Everyone is selling up the little they have and leaving," said Villasenor, 31, who is headed for Pennsylvania. "We have no alternative. They have us cornered."

The two women are among scores of illegal immigrant families across Phoenix hauling the contents of their homes into the yard this weekend as they rush to sell up and get out before the state law takes effect on Thursday.

The law, the toughest imposed by any U.S. state to curb illegal immigration, seeks to drive more than 400,000 undocumented day laborers, landscapers, house cleaners, chambermaids and other workers out of Arizona, which borders Mexico.

It makes being an illegal immigrant a state crime and requires state and local police, during lawful contact, to investigate the status of anyone they reasonably suspect of being an illegal immigrant.

The U.S. government estimates 100,000 unauthorized migrants left Arizona after the state passed an employer sanctions law three years ago requiring companies to verify workers' status using a federal computer system. There are no figures for the number who have left since the new law passed in April.

Some are heading back to Mexico or to neighboring states. Others are staying put and taking their chances.

In a sign of a gathering exodus, Mexican businesses from grocers and butcher shops to diners and beauty salons have shut their doors in recent weeks as their owners and clients leave.

On Saturday and Sunday, Reuters counted dozens of impromptu yard sales in Latino neighborhoods in central and west Phoenix/

"They wanted to drive Hispanics out of Arizona and they have succeeded even before the law even comes into effect," said Aguilar, 28, a mother of three young children who was also offering a few cherished pictures and a stereo at one of five sales on the same block.

She said she had taken in just $20 as "everyone is selling and nobody wants to buy."

LEGAL RESIDENTS FLEE

Arizona straddles the principal highway for human and drug smugglers heading into the United States from Mexico.

The state's Republican governor, Jan Brewer, signed the law in April in a bid to curb violence and cut crime stemming from illegal immigration.

Polls show the measure is backed by a solid majority of Americans and by 65 percent of Arizona voters in this election year for some state governors, all of the U.S. House of Representatives and about a third of the 100-seat Senate.

Opponents say the law is unconstitutional and a recipe for racial profiling. It is being challenged in seven lawsuits, including one filed by President Barack Obama's administration, which wants a preliminary injunction to block the law.

A federal judge heard arguments from the lawyers for the Justice Department and Arizona on Thursday and could rule at any time.

The fight over the Arizona law has complicated the White House's effort to break the deadlock with Republicans in Congress to pass a comprehensive immigration law, an already difficult task before November's elections.

While the law targets undocumented migrants, legal residents and their U.S.-born children are getting caught up in the rush to leave Arizona.

Mexican housewife Gabriela Jaquez, 37, said she is selling up and leaving for New Mexico with her husband, who is a legal resident, and two children born in Phoenix.

"Under the law, if you transport an illegal immigrant, you are committing a crime," she said as she sold children's clothes at a yard sale with three other families. "They could arrest him for driving me to the shops."

Lunaly Bustillos, a legal resident from Mexico, hoped to sell some clothes, dumbbells and an ornamental statue on Sunday before her family heads for Albuquerque, New Mexico, on Monday.

"It makes me sad and angry too because I feel I have the right to be here," said Bustillos, 17, who recently graduated from high school in Phoenix.

(Editing by John O'Callaghan)
.

No Ruling Yet After AZ Immigration Hearings

.

Printed from: http://www.kfiam640.com   

Two federal court hearings in Phoenix have ended without a ruling on whether the state's new immigration law should take effect amid a flurry of legal challenges.

The second of two hearings Thursday concluded without U.S. Judge Susan Bolton issuing a ruling.

The afternoon hearing focused on whether state law is trumped by the federal government's constitutional authority to set immigration policy.

During the morning hearing, Bolton said she's required to consider blocking only parts of the law, not the entire statute as some plaintiffs had requested.

The law requires officers, while enforcing other laws, to check a person's immigration status if there's a reasonable suspicion that the person is here illegally.

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer was in the packed courtroom in Phoenix fpr the afternoon sesion. Steve Gregory reports most of the protesters in front of the courthouse Thursday morning have gone by the afternoon.


.

Arizona Fights Obama's Immigration Suit, Blames Feds for 'Crushing Burden'

.
- FoxNews.com, July 21, 2010

Arizona urged a federal judge Tuesday to reject the Obama administration's challenge to its tough new immigration law, arguing the border state is acting within its powers.

Gov. Jan Brewer said President Obama is trying to prevent Arizona from protecting its citizens with the Justice Department suit, one of seven seeking to have the new law blocked before it goes into effect July 29.

The Tuesday filing said illegal immigration and a lack of comprehensive enforcement by the federal government has caused "crushing personal, environmental, criminal, and financial burdens" on Arizona.

"Arizona merely seeks to assist with the enforcement of existing federal immigration laws in a constitutional manner," lawyers for Brewer said. "It is [the Obama administration] that is attempting to impose immigration policies and priorities that contravene and conflict with federal law and unambiguous congressional intent."

The law requires officers, while enforcing other laws, to check a person's immigration status if there's reasonable suspicion that the person is here illegally.

In a statement, Brewer said she was "confident that the court will reject President Obama's attempt to prevent our state from protecting its citizens as a result of his failure to enforce federal immigration laws."

"My filing today makes clear that the federal government will suffer no harm if [the law] is implemented because the act requires only that Arizona's law enforcement officers act in accordance with their constitutional authority and congressionally established federal policy," she said.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton will hear oral arguments on Thursday and could issue a preliminary injunction if she finds that ultimately the Obama administration would succeed in its quest to have the law struck down.

The stakes are incredibly high. If Bolton rules in Arizona's favor, it opens the door to states taking on issues that have long been the responsibility of the federal government.

Bolton has ruled in two cases unrelated to immigration that federal law trumps state law.

In 2008, Bolton threw out a claim by a woman who alleged her employer broke a federal law on overtime pay. The woman made the claim under federal law but sought more generous damages under a state law dictating when an employee is to be paid. The judge threw out her claim under state law.

Three years earlier, in a lawsuit from a woman who claimed she was harmed by taking a cold medicine, Bolton ruled that a state law immunizing drug makers from most punitive damages in product liability cases was superseded by federal law.

Bolton has declined to be interviewed by The Associated Press about the Arizona law.

Bolton was born in 1951 and raised in Philadelphia, earned her undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Iowa and clerked for a state appeals court judge in Arizona. During her 11 years as an attorney in private practice, she co-authored a book that provides legal and clinical perspectives on violence in families.

She was appointed to the state bench in 1989 by Democratic Gov. Rose Mofford. When she was considered for a state Supreme Court post several years later, she was listed as an Independent. Her current voter registration records have been sealed.

Many lawyers who pressed cases in her court praised Bolton's meticulous reading of their filings. She asks tough questions, they said, and can handle the mountain of paper that's coming from the seven challenges to the law.

"I always felt like I got a fair shake out of her, even if she didn't rule my way," said Ed Novak, the former president of the State Bar of Arizona.

But Bolton's decisions haven't always been popular. In 2000, she struck from the ballot a land-preservation proposal advanced by the Arizona Legislature. The measure was a bid to counter a similar proposal by environmentalists that remained on the ballot.

Bolton said the Legislature's proposal violated a state constitutional requirement that ballot measures cannot cover more than one subject.

Critics called Bolton an activist judge, and accused her of working with the environmentalists to torpedo the Legislature's option.

"It seemed to me that it was more of a political decision than a decision based on fact," said Rusty Bowers, then the Senate majority leader.

Bolton's decision was reversed by the Arizona Supreme Court, and the measure appeared on the ballot and was defeated.

Paul Charlton, Arizona's top federal prosecutor from 2001 to 2007, said the criticism was unfair.

"It would be a mistake to put any kind of label on her," Charlton said. "This is someone who is not concerned with external political issues."

In any case, the lawyers in her courtroom shouldn't count on Bolton cutting them slack.

When government attorneys asked earlier this month for a last-minute hearing on whether to block Arizona's immigration law, Bolton called it laughable.

Under their timetable, Bolton would've had just 60 hours before the law took effect to decide whether to block it.

"That is completely unrealistic," Bolton said, instead setting the hearing for this week.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.
.

Arizona Latino Group Criticizes DoJ Lawsuit

Published : Friday, 09 Jul 2010, 4:12 PM MDT

PHOENIX - An Arizona Latino group has some harsh words for the Obama administration. The Arizona Latino Republican Association, a conservative Latino group, says the Department of Justice lawsuit is "frivolous."

In a statement, ALRA Chairman Jesse Hernandez said, "The original premise for the U.S. Justice Departments lawsuit against Arizona was that SB 1070 violated civil rights and encouraged racial profiling. When that no longer remained applicable, the Administration changed course and now alleges that Arizona's law is unconstitutional, barring the state its right to enforce federal law and crack down on illegal immigration."

Hernandez continued to add that the administration's lawsuit is a waste of taxpayer dollars and that the government should spend the money securing the border and enforcing its own immigration laws.

"The U.S. Department of Justice maintains that it is the federal government and the federal government alone, that has the responsibility to address immigration, secure the nations borders, and enforce immigration laws. If that is true, then what is a state to do when the federal government refuses to do its job?

"Moreover, the courts have repeatedly held that states may enforce federal laws, so their legal argument is hollow. Finally, numerous cities and states already have in place laws like SB1070, yet the Obama Administration has never challenged any of them. This is a political stunt, paid for by the taxpayers of this country, although the ultimate price will likely be paid by President Obama and his allies in November," said State Representative Steve Montenegro, a Hispanic community leader.

The ALRA says the United States' immigration system is "dysfunctional" and supports the right for Arizona to defend its border from unlawful entry.

Supporters Donate $500G to Defend Arizona Law

.

- Associated Press, July 08, 2010  

PHOENIX -- Retirees and other residents from all over the country were among those who donated nearly $500,000 to help Arizona defend its immigration enforcement law, with most chipping in $100 or less, according to an analysis of documents obtained Thusday by The Associated Press.

The donations, 88 percent of which came from through the defense fund's website, surged this week after the federal government sued Tuesday to challenge the law. A document from Gov. Jan Brewer's office showed that 7,008 of the 9,057 online contributions submitted by Thursday morning were made in the days following the government's filing.

Website contributions came from all 50 states, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, and nearly 2,000 came from within Arizona. Donations ranged from $5 to $2,000, with the vast majority between $10 and $100.

The Arizona law includes a requirement that police enforcing another law must investigate the immigration status of people if there is "reasonable suspicion" to believe the people are in the United States illegally.

Brewer and other supporters say the law will prompt illegal immigrants to leave the state and that state action was required by a failure of the federal government to secure the border.

Opponents say the law will promote racial profiling and is unconstitutional because regulating immigration is reserved for the federal government.

Donors contacted by the AP said they contributed because the federal government should be helping Arizona, not taking the state to court.

"Arizona needs our help," said Mary Ann Rohde, a retired municipal worker who lives in Rialto, Calif., who donated $20 with her husband. "It's a disgrace what our government is doing."

Howard E. Sanner, of Houston, said Arizona's approval of its law should help prod the federal government to act on border security to help prevent criminals and terrorists from entering the country illegally.

"It's just a mess that has to be straightened out," said Sanner, a retired clothing and linen salesman who said he supports legal immigration and donated $5 to the fund.

With the federal lawsuit, the law enacted in April and set to take effect July 29 is now the subject of six lawsuits now pending in federal court. Other plaintiffs include civil rights groups, individuals and several Arizona municipalities.

Brewer established the Governor's Border Security and Immigration Legal Defense Fund with an executive order on May 26. Her office said the state had received about $10,000 in unsolicited donations from people in dozens of states by then.

It's unclear what the state's legal costs will be in defending the law. Snell & Wilmer, the Phoenix-based law firm representing the state in the pending challenges, told a federal judge Wednesday that its lawyers were working late into the evening to respond to all the filings in the cases.

Citing the crush of filings in the case, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton has imposed limits on the size of so-called "friend of the court" briefs filed by groups in support or opposition to the law.

Brewer hired the private lawyers to represent the state even before the Democratic attorney general, Terry Goddard, agreed to Brewer's demand to withdraw from the state's defense. He had opposed the legislation but said he was willing to do his duty to defend the state law.
.