A federal judge ruled on Friday that Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio engaged in racial profiling of Latinos, violating their constitutional rights in his crackdown on illegal immigration. Civil rights advocates expect the ruling to send a chilling message to other law enforcement agencies that are planning to engage in immigration enforcement. “The order today will have national importance in deterring others across the country,” said Dan Pochoda, one of the prosecuting attorneys.

This is perhaps the heart of the case that the Center for Constitutional Rights brought to Judge Shira Scheindlin’s courtroom on the 15th floor of the federal courthouse in lower Manhattan. Authorities see no wrongdoing, despite the fact that over the past decade, NYPD officers have conducted nearly 4.5 million stops in a city of 8 million. Eighty-five percent of those stopped were black or Latino, meaning that many people have been stopped more than once. 

“SB 1070 is being used as a tool to intimidate and hurt communities,” said Lydia Guzman, the national chairman of the League of United Latin American Citizens’ (LULAC) Immigration Committee, to the board. Almost three years after the bill was signed into law making it mandatory for police to contact immigration authorities if they suspect someone is in the country illegally, the Arizona Civil Rights Advisory Board (ACRAB) heard testimony from undocumented immigrants themselves. 

Filed in 2008 by the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), Floyd et. al v. City of New York charges that the NYPD interdicted millions of ordinary people on the city's streets merely for being people of color -- or "walking while black," in the words of the New York Times. As many as 5 million people were subjected to searches over a period of several years as they walked home or walked to the store or simply hung out in front of their homes, according to statistics compiled by the ACLU. 

America stands at a crossroads. We can take the high road toward equal access to high-quality public education, reaffirm our commitment to democratically elected public officials, end the failed war on drugs, recommit to the right of workers to bargain for better conditions, lower our dreadful rate of hyper-incarceration and implement the Affordable Care Act. Or we can travel in the opposite direction and move the nation away from equal opportunity and justice.

U.S. Supreme Court justices expressed skepticism over the federal government’s arguments April 25  in a hearing on Arizona’s controversial immigration law SB 1070. The justices could issue a decision as early as June. Among the key questions at the heart of the case is whether states can enforce their own immigration laws. 

On April 17, the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights listened to testimony from legislators, legal experts, law enforcement officials, and advocates expressing their views on the state of racial profiling in America. Members of the committee debated the merits of The End of Racial Profiling Act of 2011 – which supporters say would help strengthen ties between minority communities and law enforcement agencies that are supposed to serve them.

As the tragedy of Trayvon Martin's death calls the country to examine the racial inequities of the criminal justice system, it must go beyond our common, and justified, focus on the racist zealots or inept police officers. It has to go where the real power lies – with the prosecutors – the ones who control the levers of the system in counties and states across the country. In Martin’s case, it was prosecutor Norm Wolfinger who allowed his killer to walk free. 

A group of pro-immigrant rights activists in Arizona aim to develop a smartphone application that would help immigrants notify friends, family and their attorney if they are detained and arrested during a traffic stop.  The app will allow users to notify family, friends, attorneys and even their consulate when they get pulled over by law enforcement or when they are facing an emergency situation that puts their safety or civil rights at risk.