Mixed reaction to immigration ruling - WAFF-TV: News, Weather and Sports for Huntsville, AL

There were mixed reactions to the United States Supreme Court ruling on Arizona's Immigration Law.

The Supreme Court ruled against three sections of the law, but allowed a fourth section that lets law enforcement officials determine the legal status of a person they pull over.

Alabama Coalition for Immigrant Justice spokesperson Rosa Calderon called the decision a win. However, her group believed allowing law enforcement to determine someone's legal status will create racial profiling.

"We don't want to create any more of a divide between law enforcement and the Hispanic community," said Calderon. "Law enforcement is there to protect the community and the Hispanic community is not going to be eager to report crimes."

Alabama Congressman Mo Brooks was disappointed by the courts decision to toss out three of the four sections. He strongly believed the law was constitutional. Brooks was encouraged by the court's decision to uphold the one section though.

"That's something we didn't have before so that's a win," said Brooks.

Alabama's Immigration Law closely followed Arizona's. Earlier this spring, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals decided to put off ruling on Alabama's law until the Supreme Court made a decision on Arizona's law. Expect the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals decision on Alabama's law to come out in the next few weeks.

Depending on how the court rules, Alabama's immigration law could go before the Supreme Court.

For that to happen, 11th Circuit Court of Appeals would have to strike down Alabama's immigration law. The state attorney general would then have to appeal to the United States Supreme Court.

If the High Court takes the case, the attorney general's office would have to appeal to the United States Supreme Court.

"The Alabama law has that there's already a federal law for the united states supreme court on a 5-3 decision today has said we're going to go by the commerce clause and the commerce clause says that's our job, we're going to regulate that, that's what the constitution says, and we're not going to let you pass a state law that's contrary to a federal law," said legal analyst Mark McDaniel.

Copyright 2012 WAFF. All rights reserved.