Today, the eyes of the legal world will be on U.S. District Judge and University of Alabama graduate Sharon Blackburn. At stake: the fate of House Bill 56, informally known as the “Alabama immigration law.”

The measure, which was swiftly passed by the Republican-dominated state legislature and signed into law by Gov. Robert Bentley in June, was met with controversy.

The bill sparked much discourse on campus, with leaders from both College Democrats and College Republicans being well represented.

“I find House Bill 56 to be a naked, racist political ploy, and one that will cost Alabama taxpayers millions to defend in court,” said Michael Fitzmorris, a junior who serves as the Vice President of the Alabama College Democrats. “Alabama is less than 50 years removed from the Civil Rights Era, and would do well to avoid embracing costly, hateful mistakes of the past.”

However many disagree with Fitzmorris and his view of the law.

“Facts about H.B. 56 have been purposefully misrepresented in order to generate fear and anger,” said Cliff Sims, the President of the UA College Republicans. “They do this because it is difficult to convince Alabamians that it is somehow unfair to require proof of legal residency from those wishing to receive public benefits, or that that it is somehow discriminatory to require employers to hire only legal, documented workers.”

H.B. 56 requires proof of citizenship when renewing or applying for a driver license and requires all employers to use the ALverify system. ALverify was developed by the Center for Advanced Public Safety at the University of Alabama and gives employers the ability to quickly check the citizenship of its workers against various state databases. This is important as the law makes it illegal to knowingly hire an illegal alien. If implemented, the law mandates all public schools to check the immigration status of all of its students and criminalizes many activities that could be seen as aiding an alien, such as giving them a ride.

After Bentley signed the bill into law, the Department of Justice quickly filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of Alabama, Blackburn’s district. In a statement released to the media, the DOJ expressed its reasoning, “Various provisions of H.B. 56 conflict with federal immigration law and undermine the federal government’s careful balance of immigration enforcement priorities and objectives.”

The statement continues, “While the federal government values state assistance and cooperation with respect to immigration enforcement, a state cannot set its own immigration policy, much less pass laws that conflict with federal enforcement of the immigration laws.”

The Supremacy Clause is found in article six of the Constitution and seems to be the cornerstone of the Department of Justice’s legal argument. It reads, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”

Cody Jones, a senior and the College Democrats’ communications director, said he believes the Department of Justice is right. “Most people take up the constitutionality arguments,” he said. “And from my opinion, the argument is certainly strong enough that Alabama is stepping into federal jurisdiction and unlawful racial profiling, and I believe the judge will rule to that effect.”

But UA College Republicans President Sims disagrees with the constitutionality argument.

“The federal government has failed this country when it comes to immigration and endangered our citizens,” Sims said. “It has willfully relinquished its right to enforce its immigration law, and now the Department of Justice is trying to take away Alabama’s right to enforce our own laws. If the federal government won’t do its job and protect us, we must protect ourselves.”

The matter that will be decided today is essentially three separate lawsuits in one. The various plaintiffs in the first suit form a class action, made up of the Hispanic Interest Coalition of Alabama, Southern Poverty Law Center, National Immigration Law Center, Asian Law Caucus, Asian American Justice Center and the American Civil Liberties Union. The second suit is between the state and Rev. Henry N. Parsley, the Episcopalian church’s Bishop for the Diocese of Alabama. Parsley and other religious leaders believe the law’s provision about aiding illegals is cruel and goes against the mission of his faith. The third lawsuit was brought by the Department of Justice. The defendant in all three cases is the Governor of Alabama, as is common in the legal tradition.

When the lawsuits were announced, Bentley took special offense to the Episcopalian church’s suit.

“I am disappointed that these church leaders would seek to shield those who, by their very presence, break our laws,” Bentley said. “It is important to remember that the operative word in the phrase illegal immigrant is illegal.”

In a statement released after Blackburn postponed the ruling date in August, Bentley said, “I look forward to the Judge ruling on the merits. We have long needed a tough law against illegal immigration in this state, and we now have one.”

Despite his confidence, Bentley did acknowledge that the law might be struck down.

“I will continue to fight at every turn to defend this law against any and all challenges.”