Today, The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and a coalition of civil rights groups which include the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), the National Immigration Law Center (NILC), the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), and others, filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona challenging the state’s new immigration law, SB-1070. The suit, which represents labor, domestic violence, day labor, human services and social justice organizations, along with ten individuals who would allegedly be subject to harassment or arrest, claims that not only is SB-1070 “un-American,” it’s also unconstitutional.

While proponents of SB-1070 maintain that the measure is merely a reiteration of the federal immigration laws that are already in place, the ACLU’s official complaint names a variety of state and federal statutes that it conflicts with. More specifically, the ACLU identifies four basic legal principles that the law contradicts:

1. The Supremacy Clause, Article VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution
The Supremacy Clause mandates that federal law preempts state law “in any area over which Congress expressly or impliedly has reserved exclusive authority or which is constitutionally reserved to the federal government, or where state law conflicts or interferes with federal law.” The complaint claims SB-1070 “is void in its entirety” and also points out that “the Supreme Court has held that the Federal government’s power to control immigration is inherent in the nation’s sovereignty.” According to the ACLU, the U.S. Congress has created a comprehensive system of federal laws that “leaves no room for supplemental state laws.” Additionally, SB-1070 allegedly “imposes burdens and penalties on legal residents not authorized by and contrary to federal law and unilaterally imposes burdens on the federal government’s resources and processes.” Furthermore, federal law does not mandate that local police enforce immigration law, SB-1070 does.

2. Equal Protection and Due Process Clause,
Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution
The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that “No State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” SB-1070 does not provide any criteria that police should use in determining “reasonable suspicion” that someone is undocumented. In a separate document, the ACLU notes, “apart from appearance, it’s hard to imagine any way a police officer could suspect that someone was not in the country legally.” Despite the fact that the law bans racial profiling, it seems inevitable that certain populations will be asked for documents more often than others simply based on the way they look. Under SB-1070, police officers are also authorized to detain and transfer individuals without appropriate due process procedures — based merely on a belief that they have violated federal civil immigration laws, when state and local officers are not even competent to make such a determination.

3. First Amendment of the United States Constitution
The ACLU believes that the First Amendment protects a person’s freedom of speech and expressive activity. In this sense, both Section 2 and Section 5 of SB-1070 place unconstitutional restrictions on a person’s rights. Section 2 “impermissibly vests” in police officers “unbridled discretion” in establishing “reasonable suspicion” that someone is undocumented. That means that a person’s “gestures, language, accent, clothing, English-word selection, failure to communicate in English, and/or other expressive conduct” could be restrained based on a fear of being being stopped, questioned, detained, arrested, and/or jailed. Section 5, which bans day laborers from being hired or seeking work, further prohibits the expression of availability to work in any “public place.”

4. Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits “unreasonable searches and seizures.” Meanwhile, SB-1070 requires that police officers conduct unreasonable and warrantless searches and seizures of individuals without probable cause that they have committed crimes. In other words, a naturalized U.S. citizen with a thick accent who was pulled over for speeding could have his car searched and possessions seized simply because he rushed out the door and forgot his wallet.

The ACLU also claims that SB-1070 contradicts the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the U.S. Constitution which provides that “[t]he Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States,” another section of United States Code which guarantees that “[a]ll persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State,” and Arizona’s own state Constitution which holds that “No person shall be disturbed in private affairs…without authority of law.”

This recent New York Times story on attempted Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad’s path to violence doesn’t provide any kind of grand unified theory of radicalization, but it does present a familiar story of displacement and alienation that we’ve seen in the stories of many other terrorists, Muslim and otherwise.

Recognizing that the idea — on display today, as always, at National Review — that there’s something intrinsic to the Islamic faith that makes its adherents more violence-prone than others is both offensive, ignorant, and deeply stupid, I don’t think there’s any denying that Attorney General Eric Holder dealt very clumsily with Rep. Lamar Smith’s (R-TX) badgering last week at a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee over whether “radical Islam” played a part in Faisal Shahzad’s decision to attempt mass murder. Sure, Rep. Smith was playing to his conservative base by indulging in a bit of juvenile Muslim baiting, but I’m not sure why it was so hard for Attorney General Holder to simply acknowledge that an extremist variant of Islam was possibly among the factors behind the botched attack, as it clearly was.

On the other hand, I understand Holder’s reluctance to affirm these kind of talking points in favor of a more textured understanding of the contributing factors and conditions that create a terrorist. When it comes to crime and violence, conservatives have generally always been skeptical of talk of complex “root causes,” preferring instead explanations that aren’t too intellectually taxing. Probably one of the best and most humorous examples of this was former Senator Bob Dole’s declaration, upon accepting his party’s nomination as presidential candidate at the 1996 Republican National Convention, that “I mean to attack the root cause of crime — criminals, violent criminals.” Similarly, conservatives like Smith and others “mean to attack the root cause of radical Islamic terrorism — radical Islam.”

In the years since 9/11, especially relating to the U.S. intervention in Iraq, there’s been a pretty interesting debate going on in national security circles about violent radicalization, and the way that things like foreign occupation, humiliation, social alienation, and air strikes that kill civilians contribute to making individuals more receptive to extremist ideologies such as “radical Islam.” But judging from the way in which so many conservatives see “radical Islam” itself as a first cause, that debate unfortunately seems to have passed them by.

Last year, the state legislature in Tennessee overrode Gov. Phil Bredesen’s veto of a bill that would have allowed gun owners to carry their weapons into any restaurant except those whose predominant business was to serve alcohol. After the law “was later declared unconstitutionally vague,” Bredesen is currently deciding whether to veto a new bill state legislators passed this year that has “no exclusions for where guns can be carried, as long as permit holders don’t consume alcohol.”

But other state measures have the potential to go a bit further. Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) recently signed a bill into law that allows “concealed carry permit holders to bring loaded guns” into bars. But the local gun lobby is trying to get it changed so they will also be allowed to consume alcohol. And in Georgia, the state house recently passed a bill would make it “legal to enter a bar or restaurant with a licensed concealed weapon and get drunk,” as long as the individual doesn’t fire the weapon.

This weekend at the NRA’s annual conference in Charlotte, NC, ThinkProgress asked NRA members about the wisdom of these state measures. One woman said she is “not a person who drinks” and therefore thought “concealed carry should extend to commercial establishments too,” including bars. When ThinkProgress asked her if people carrying guns into bars should be able to drink alcohol, the woman replied, “No.” Reactions from other members were a bit more definitive:

– NRA MEMBER 1: You shouldn’t go get drunk and go even target shooting or something, it impairs your judgement. … It’s a rule of thumb, alcohol and guns don’t mix.

– NRA MEMBER 2: It’s probably not the best mix. … I think if you have a place where people might get out of hand with the alcohol, if they do go in with arms it needs to be taken away. They need to set it aside.

– NRA MEMBER 3: That’s probably not the best idea…allowing people to bring guns into bars and drinking.

– NRA MEMBER 4: I can understand not…carrying while you’re drinking.

Watch the video compilation:

According to one Tennessee GOP representative, the NRA threatened to withdraw endorsements if legislators voted against the bill allowing residents to carry guns in bars. “This line of reasoning borders on lunacy,” he said, adding, “What line will we not cross for the NRA? At what point do we say that’s too much?”

A recent poll also found that 56 percent of gun owners said that retail establishments should establish a strict “no guns” policy for their business.