The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has struck down an Arizona state constitutional amendment that banned judges from considering bail for undocumented immigrants suspected of a crime.

The amendment, known as Proposition 100, barred the consideration of bail for undocumented immigrants in Arizona even for minor crimes such as shoplifting or possession of fake identification. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, Prop 100 resulted in "countless" people being jailed despite posing little risk of fleeing the jurisdiction or being a danger to others.

The ACLU claimed Proposition 100 violated the Due Process Clause. The opponents of the proposition also said it is excessive and punishes undocumented immigration with pretrial detention. The appeals court ruled the amendment unconstitutional by a 9-2 vote.

ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project Director Cecillia Wang said the appeals court's ruling "vindicates" a basic American freedom outlined in the U.S. Constitution "that every person accused of a crime is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty."

"The court has restored to Arizona the fundamental constitutional principle that each person is entitled to an individual hearing in court before they are locked up while awaiting trial," said Wang, who also served as lead counsel for the case before the 9th Circuit.

"Prop 100 is the latest anti-immigrant Arizona law to be struck down by the federal courts," ACLU of Arizona Senior Counsel Dan Pochoda said. "Prop 100 was designed by activist politicians to be part and parcel of an anti-immigrant agenda. The courts have ruled that such laws are illegal; and we have seen in Arizona that they are wasteful and divisive."

Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery said an "obvious disconnect" exists with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

"It is a fact that persons committing crimes in Maricopa County who are present without lawful authority have failed to appear when admission to bail was a regular practice," Montgomery said in a statement. "In these circumstances, since conditions of release include the admonition to be law abiding, we have the immediate reality of matters where a person accused of a crime is simultaneously in violation of federal law due to federal inaction, incompetence, and indifference."

Montgomery alleged that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals chose to establish a "victim class of criminals" instead of protecting crime victims and public safety.

"We are currently reviewing and determining our next steps in this matter," Montgomery said.

The amendment has been in effect, by public vote, in Arizona since 2006 and was challenged in court in 2008. The case can be found as Lopez-Valenzuela, et al. v. County of Maricopa, et al.

Related