By Lee A. Daniels

A federal judge this week blocked the central and most controversial provisions of Arizona’s newly-enacted immigration law that took effect Thursday, declaring they improperly interfered with federal immigration enforcement law.

But while the judge’s ruling cheered opponents of the law, which included the federal Department of Justice, it represented only the first stage of the court system’s involvement in this latest manifestation of the country’s bitter dispute over how to stop illegal immigration and what to do about the undocumented immigrants already here.

The day after the decision, Arizona’s Governor, Jan Brewer, formally asked the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco to consider the state’s appeal on an expedited basis.

And it is certain that whatever that court decides will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court – thus ensuring that the impassioned immigration debate will remain high on the nation’s political debate card through the November mid-term elections.

U.S. District Court Judge Susan R. Bolton declared that four provisions of the law the state legislature enacted this spring could not take effect.

Those provisions were: That Arizona law enforcement officers were required to make a “reasonable attempt” to determine the immigration status of individuals they had a “reasonable suspicion” of being undocumented immigrants; That it was now a crime for individuals to enter the U.S and not apply for or carry alien registration papers; That it was now a crime for undocumented immigrants to seek work; and that law officers could arrest without a warrant any individual whom they believed had “committed a public offense” for which they could be deported from the U.S.

Gov. Brewer, whose popularity in Arizona, has increased sharply since she became the law’s most prominent champion, was defiant. She stated that “If the federal government wants to be in charge of illegal immigration and they want no help from states, it then needs to do its job. Arizona would not be faced with this problem if the federal government honored its responsibilities.”

Federal officials were low-key in their response, reflecting the political sensitivity of the issue The White House left it to a Justice Department spokesperson to express the view that Judge Bolton had “ruled correctly” and that the Obama administration had “dedicated unprecedented resources” reducing illegal immigration.

Some significant number states governors and legislatures have made it clear they side with Arizona more than Washington. Nine states filed legal briefs with the court supporting Arizona’s position; state legislators in at least 17 states have introduced bills similar to the Arizona law; and several recent polls have shown majority support for such measures within Arizona and across the nation as a whole.

Nonetheless, opponents of the Arizona law said that Judge Bolton’s ruling that it intruded upon federal authority is likely to carry substantial weight as the case moves on to the higher courts.

Thomas A. Saenz, president of the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which has separately sued to block the law’s implementation in a case yet to be decided, said that Judge Bolton’s ruling was “a warning to any other jurisdiction” that such laws would not stand legal scrutiny.”

Lee A. Daniels is Director of Communications for the NAACP Legal  Defense & Educational Fund, Inc., and Editor-in-Chief of  TheDefendersOnline.