A Supreme Court decision striking much of Arizona’s controversial law aimed at combating illegal immigration may curtail attempts to enact similar legislation in Mississippi.

     Brookhaven’s Rep. Becky Currie, a strong proponent of anti-illegal immigrant laws, said she still wants to legislatively address the issue but is weighing the options left open by the high court’s ruling Monday.

     As recently as May, Currie, District 92’s Republican representative, had pledged to file an Arizona-style immigration bill on “day one” of the next session. In this year’s session, a bill sponsored by Currie and modeled on Alabama legislation cleared the House but died in a Senate committee.

     Currie conveyed disappointment in Monday’s ruling by the Supreme Court.

     “I have no idea how turning federal law into state law can be unconstitutional, so I’m a little surprised at the Supreme Court’s actions,” Currie said.

     Currie said she’ll be meeting in August with other lawmakers to discuss how to move forward in Mississippi. She said the outcome of November’s presidential election will play a role in determining what action to take.

     “There’s no reason to drag Mississippi through a court battle we can’t win,” Currie said. “I’m not interested in spending Mississippi taxpayers’ money on that.”

     That statement provides maybe the first time Currie and District 53 Rep. Bobby Moak, D-Bogue Chitto, have agreed on the subject of immigration legislation.

     “Mississippi should not be the one spending millions of dollars to get to the Supreme Court so we can lose,” said Moak, the House minority leader.

     A bill the state House approved in the spring looked milder than Arizona’s but relied on several key provisions ruled invalid by the Supreme Court. With that framework gone, Currie said a more incremental approach may be necessary.

     “One of the bills that died last year was that illegal immigrants were not allowed to receive any state funding as far as Medicaid, food stamps, etc.,” Currie said. “That bill I’m sure will be brought back.”

     Currie also discussed Mississippi’s E-verify law, which requires employers to double-check the residency status of employees. According to state law, 100 percent of employers should be verifying but only about 7 percent currently are, Currie said.

     “We’ll probably have to start chipping away at what we can,” Currie said.

“To say where we we’re going to go, my first thought is to make sure we’re E-verifying and state services are not being received.”

     Moak believes the court’s ruling offers a warning to Mississippi lawmakers and believes state-level attempts to deal with illegal immigration should be dropped.

     “They told the states you’re not going to supersede federal law,” Moak said. “That’s a warning to the states to be very careful.”

     Moak called state attempts to strengthen E-verify the “wrong approach” that could entangle the state in litigation.

     However, he expects to see bills introduced defying the court’s ruling.

     “We’re going to have legislation introduced that probably tries to undo the Supreme Court, but it won’t get out of the box,” Moak said. “It will be just to fulfill some political agenda.”

     The Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional Arizona provisions making it illegal for undocumented immigrant to seek work, criminalizing “unauthorized immigrants” for failing to carry registration papers or identification and authorization for law enforcement to arrest illegal immigrants without a warrant if “probably cause” exists they could be deported.

     The court let stand a law requiring law enforcement to inquire about immigration status in the course of enforcing other laws if they suspect a person is in the country illegally.

     However, the majority opinion was provisional in its approval and left the door open for further challenges. The majority opinion also warned that immigration-status checks could not be used as a pretext for detention.

     Moak believes any attempt to enact the sole provision spared by the court would be unwise.

     “You could do that, but I don’t think you get anything out of it,” said Moak, pointing out that he sees the status check as impotent without any enforcement provisions.

     It’s those enforcement provisions Currie said the federal government has ignored, leaving states with a problem they now can’t address. She described the ruling as a blow against states’ rights and an invitation to further flouting of U.S. immigration laws.

     “The borders are open and the hard-working taxpayers will take care of you; that’s pretty much what they said,” Currie said.