By JACQUES BILLEAUD AND NICHOLAS RICCARDI, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

PHOENIX — More than two years after it was signed into law, the most contentious part of Arizona's landmark immigration legislation is expected to finally go into effect following a federal court ruling issue late Wednesday.

But the U.S. Supreme Court has laid a legal minefield that Arizona now must navigate when the critical provision takes effect. The clause, one of the few significant ones that the high court left standing in a June ruling, requires all Arizona police officers to check the immigration status of people they stop while enforcing other laws and suspect are in the country without documents.

While preserving that requirement, however, the Supreme Court explicitly left the door open to arguments that the law leads to civil rights violations. Attorneys would need actual victims to make that case.

Civil rights activists are preparing to scour the state for such victims. Lydia Guzman, who runs Respect/Respeto, a Phoenix group that tracks racial profiling, said volunteers at the organization's call center have already been told to listen for new complaints when the requirement goes into effect.

"We're watching and we're looking for cases," she said.

Barring a successful, emergency challenge of Wednesday's ruling to an appeals court – an outcome that legal observers believe is unlikely – the requirement is expected to go into effect in the next several days. U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton rejected arguments by civil rights attorneys that she should prevent the requirement from kicking in, noting that the Supreme Court had specifically found that the provision should be allowed to become law.

Arizona police were formally trained on how to implement the law shortly after Gov. Jan Brewer signed it in 2010. The heads of some of the state's biggest law enforcement agencies – the Phoenix and Tucson police departments and the Pima County sheriff's office – were critical of it but ultimately said they would obey whatever parts the courts found to be constitutional.

"We enforce laws passed by our legislators," Sgt. Tommy Thompson, a Phoenix Police spokesman, said Wednesday night, noting the requirement still has not gone into effect.

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who has been the most publicly aggressive in pursuing undocumented immigrants, said in an interview Wednesday that his deputies already check the immigration status of people they encounter. Arpaio, a supporter of the law, said he expects no differences other than an increased number of lawsuits.

The law's author, former state Sen. Russell Pearce, said he does not expect sweeping changes in the way local police will conduct themselves once the requirement kicks in.

"I'm not asking for roundups, I'm not asking for anything but paying attention and doing your job," he said. "It's not that we want people in jail. We want compliance."

Peter Spiro, a Temple University law professor who has followed the two-year legal battle, said Arizona remains in a difficult legal spot.

"If the state's savvy at all, it's going to be very cautious" about how it implements the requirement, he said. "To the extent that it's not, it's going to be very vulnerable on this.

"Further litigation," Spiro said, "is imminent."

Since it overwhelmingly passed Arizona's Republican-controlled Legislature in 2010, the immigration law has been fiercely challenged in court.

Among its opponents was the Obama administration, which challenged the law based on the argument that federal immigration law trumped Arizona law. The challenge didn't confront racial profiling, and the administration failed to persuade the nation's highest court to strike down the questioning requirement.

To the supporters of Arizona's law, the questioning requirement was the most important part of the statute, whose stated purpose was to reduce the problems associated with illegal immigration through enforcement by the state.

Immigrant rights groups believe the requirement presents the most opportunities for civil rights abuses.

Shortly before the law was to take effect in July 2010, Bolton prevented police from enforcing the questioning requirement and other parts of the statute, ruling the Obama administration would likely succeed in showing federal law trumps the state law.

Brewer appealed the ruling, lost at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and took her case to the Supreme Court.

Less controversial sections of the law have been in effect since late July 2010 but have rarely been used.

Arizona's law was passed amid voter frustration with the state's role as the busiest illegal entry point into the country. Five states – Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah – have adopted variations of Arizona's law.

Brewer's office said the law is expected to go into effect shortly.

"The courts have now consistently found that the plaintiffs have not met the high bar in arguing this law needs to be enjoined before it's allowed to take effect," gubernatorial spokesman Matthew Benson said. "Certainly, Gov. Brewer is pleased with this decision. She believes it's time SB1070 is implemented and so that we can see how effective this law is in practice."

Karen Tumlin, an attorney for the National Immigration Law Center, said her office was "considering our legal options" after Bolton's ruling.

"We were surprised and disappointed," said Dan Pochoda, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona.

Bolton did, however, grant a preliminary injunction against a statute making it illegal to harbor individuals suspected of being in the country without documents.

Guzman, the Arizona civil rights activist, said she expects police to tread cautiously as they implement the requirement.

"They know they're under the watchful eyes of activists like me, attorneys and even their own departments," she said.

___

Riccardi reported from Denver. Associated Press writers Walter Berry in Phoenix and Felicia Fonseca in Flagstaff contributed to this report.

Also on HuffPost:

Loading Slideshow...
  • The Template: California Proposition 187 (1994)

    California's Proposition 187 was submitted to the voters with the full support of then Republican governor Pete Wilson. It essentially blamed undocumented immigrants for the poor performance of the state economy in the early 1990s. The law called for cutting off benefits to undocumented immigrants: prohibiting their access to health care, public education, and other social services in California. It also required state authorities to report anyone who they suspected was undocumented. <strong>Status:</strong> The law passed with the support of 55 percent of the voters in 1994 but declared unconstitutional 1997. The law was killed in 1999 when a new governor, Democrat Gray Davis, refused to appeal a judicial decision that struck down most of the law. Even though short-lived, the legislation paved the way for harsher immigration laws to come. On the other hand, the strong reaction from the Hispanic community and immigration advocates propelled a drive for naturalization of legal residents and created as many as one million new voters.

  • The Worst: Arizona SB 1070

    The Arizona Act made it a misdemeanor for an undocumented immigrant to be within the state lines of Arizona without legal documents allowing their presence in the U.S. This law has been widely criticized as xenophobic and for encouraging racial profiling. It requires state authorities to inquire about an individual's immigration status during an arrest when there is "reasonable suspicion" that the individual is undocumented. The law would allow police to detain anyone who they believe was in the country illegally. <strong>Status:</strong> The law was signed into law by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer on April 23, 2010. But it has generated a swirl of controversy and questions about its constitutionality. A federal judge issued a ruling that blocked what critics saw as some of the law's harshest provisions. House: 35-31 (4/12/2011)

  • Following Arizona's Footsteps: Georgia HB 87

    The controversy over Arizona's immigration law was followed by heated debate over Georgia's own law. HB 87 required government agencies and private companies to check the immigration status of applicants. This law also limited some government benefits to people who could prove their legal status. <strong>Status:</strong> Although a federal judge temporarily blocked parts of the law considered too extreme, it went into effect on July 1st. 2011. House: 113-56 Senate: 39-17

  • Verifying Authorized Workers: Pennsylvania HB 1502

    This bill, which was approved in 2010, bans contractors and subcontractors employ undocumented workers from having state construction contracts. The bill also protects employees who report construction sites that hire illegal workers. To ensure that contractors hire legal workers, the law requires employers to use the identification verification system E-verify, based on a compilation of legally issued Social Security numbers. <strong>Status:</strong> Approved on June 8th 2010. House: 188-6 (07/08/2010) <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/donkeyhotey/" target="_hplink">Flickr photo by DonkeyHotey</a>

  • A Spin Off of Arizona: Utah HB 497

    Many states tried to emulate Arizona's SB 1070 law. However, most state legislatures voted against the proposals. Utah's legislature managed to approve an immigration law based on a different argument. Taking into consideration the criticism of racial profiling in Arizona, Utah required ID cards for "guest workers" and their families. In order to get such a card workers must pay a fee and have clean records. The fees go up to $2,500 for immigrants who entered the country illegally and $1,000 for immigrants who entered the country legally but were not complying with federal immigration law, <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/06/nation/la-na-illegal-immigration-20110306" target="_hplink">according to the LA Times.</a> <strong>Status: </strong> Law went into effect on 03/15/2011 House: 59-15 (03/04/2011) Senate: 22-5 (03/04/2011)

  • The Most Comprehensive: Florida HB-1C

    Florida's immigration law prohibits any restrictions on the enforcement of federal immigration law. It makes it unlawful for undocumented immigrants within the state to apply for work or work as an independent contractor. It forbids employers from hiring immigrants if they are aware of their illegal status and requires work applicants to go through the E-verify system in order to check their Social Security number. <strong>Status: </strong>effective since October 1st, 2010

  • The Hot Seat: Alabama HB 56

    The new immigration law in Alabama is considered the toughest in the land, even harder than Arizona's SB 1070. It prohibits law enforcement officers from releasing an arrested person before his or her immigration status is determined. It does not allow undocumented immigrants to receive any state benefit, and prohibits them from enrolling in public colleges, applying for work or soliciting work in a public space. The law also prohibits landlords from renting property to undocumented immigrants, and employers from hiring them. It requires residents to prove they are citizens before they become eligible to vote. The law asked every school in the state to submit an annual report with the number of presumed undocumented students, but this part, along with others, were suspended by federal courts. <strong>Status:</strong> Approved June 2nd, 2011 House: 73-28 (04/05/2011) Senate: 23-11 (05/05/2011) <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/longislandwins/" target="_hplink">Flickr photo by longislandwins</a>