July 15, 2013

A Florida jury on Saturday returned a “not guilty” verdict in the highly publicized trial of George Zimmerman for the shooting death of unarmed African American teenager Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer, was charged with second-degree murder for killing Martin during a confrontation on Feb. 26, 2012, in Sanford, Florida. Zimmerman’s acquittal led to prayer vigils and largely peaceful protests and rallies on Sunday by people who believed Martin was the victim of a racially biased judicial system.

During the trial, the prosecution claimed that Zimmerman had targeted Martin, who was walking home from a convenience store, because of his race and clothing. Lawyers for the state also argued that Zimmerman was chiefly responsible for triggering the violence that left Martin dead. The defense argued that Zimmerman had shot Martin in self-defense after the teenager had knocked him to the ground and started pounding his head on the pavement. The trial highlighted Florida’s controversial “stand your ground” law, which allows Floridians who have a reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death to use lethal force against another person, even if retreating from the danger is possible. There were no eyewitnesses to the fight between Zimmerman and Martin.

Some legal experts argued that the state had miscalculated in charging Zimmerman with second-degree murder rather than a lesser charge. Some experts also criticized the police investigation of Martin’s death.

Additional World Book articles:

• African Americans
• Racial profiling
• Civil rights (2012) (a Back in Time article)

June 25, 2012

The Supreme Court of the United States today struck down nearly all provisions of a strict 2010 Arizona law that had served as a model for states attempting to crack down on illegal immigration. In a 5-3 decision, the court ruled that, for the most part, immigration policy must be left to the federal government.

The court unanimously let stand one of the law’s most contentious elements, often known as the “papers please” provision. This provision requires police to check the immigration status of people they stop for another crime if they have a “reasonable suspicion” that the detainees are in the country illegally. The court said overturning this provision would have been premature because Arizona police had not yet adopted this practice. At the request of the Department of Justice, federal courts had blocked Arizona from implementing the law. However, the court left open the possibility that this provision could be challenged later if implementing the provision results in “racial profiling.” Discrimination on the basis of race and ethnic background is unconstitutional.

The decision was a major victory for the administration of President Barack Obama, who had criticized the law for undermining “basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans.” Critics had charged that the law authorized discrimination against Hispanic Americans. Supporters of the law, who had argued that such action was necessary to counter the problem of illegal immigration in the state, praised the ruling on the “papers please” provision.

Among provisions of the law rejected by the court were those that:

• made it a crime for undocumented immigrants to work or apply for work in Arizona;
• allowed police officers to arrest people without a warrant solely on the suspicion that the people were undocumented immigrants;
• made it a state requirement that immigrants register with the federal government;
• required immigrants to carry their alien registration papers at all times.

In its decision, the court recognized that while Arizona might have “understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration … the state may not pursue policies that undermine federal law.” Justice Elena Kagan did not participate in the ruling, presumably because she worked on the case during her tenure as President Obama’s first solicitor general.

U.S. Border Patrol members ride all-terrain vehicles near El Paso, Texas, looking for signs of illegal immigration and other crimes. Juarez, Mexico, rises in the background. (© Jim Young, Reuters/Landov)

Arizona is one of many states that have passed strict anti-immigration laws in recent years. Those laws will now come under additional scrutiny in light of the Supreme Court decision.

Additional World Book articles:

• Immigration 2010 (a Back in Time article)
• Immigration 2011 (a Back in Time article)
• Immigration Politics 2006 (a Special Report)