In celebration and observance of Constitution day, two teams of University of Alabama students met Monday in the Ferguson Center Theatre to debate the constitutionality of certain sections of HB 56.

Students of political science professor Joseph Smith were pitted against members of the UA Mock Trial team in an argument that ultimately resulted in a split decision by members of the Student Government Association Judicial Board who oversaw and served as judges for the event.

The debate focused on section 27 of the law, which prohibits Alabama courts from enforcing any contract made by someone in the country illegally.

“This provision is important, because it means that if an undocumented alien signed a rental contract, a work contract or an agreement to purchase something, and the other party to the contract didn’t fulfill their obligations, the alien would not be able to use the state courts to have the contract enforced,” Smith said. “The provision makes it much easier for unscrupulous people to disregard the promises they make to undocumented aliens.”

One of the major elements debated by the two sides regarded the concept of preemption, an aspect of constitutional law affording certain rights to the federal government above and beyond that of state and local legislators.

The Mock Trial represented the state of Alabama and held by virtue of previous rulings that the concept of preemption should not be applied to this section in the case of illegal immigration. They held that the state sought to promote the economic prosperity of lawful Alabama residents above that of undocumented illegal aliens.

“Federal statutes do not preempt section 27 of House Bill 56,” Benjamin Slate, co-counsel for Mock Trial said. “Section 27 seeks only to make those contracts entered into by unlawfully present aliens unenforceable in the Alabama courts.”

The team of students from Smith’s constitutional law course represented the federal government and argued that Alabama was overstepping its bounds by creating laws which directly impeded federal immigration services from enforcing the laws of the United States. The team held that the states are already unable to curtail or complement federal laws, and that by virtue of this restriction, should not be allowed to draft such laws as those passed in HB 56.

Another subject of debate included the intent of the law, which Smith’s group held to be purely discriminatory in nature and designed to make immigrants deport themselves rather than suffer inhospitable living conditions in Alabama.

“Immigrant self-deportation happened as an effect of this bill, and was the intent of the bill stated by both co-sponsors,” Sarah Hughes, the co-counsel for Smith’s team said. “Representative Hammon said that this bill should ‘attack every aspect of an illegal immigrants life,’ and Senator Beason outright stated that this bill should create ‘an atmosphere of self-deportation’.””

At the close of the event the representatives of the SGA Judicial Board were unable to reach a unanimous decision as to who won the debate. The board announced a tie, with two members favoring the opinion of the Mock Trial and two siding with the members of Smith’s constitutional law course.