continues, but the state may not pursue policies that undermine federal law," Justice Kennedy added. 'Jaywalking in Tucson' He explained why section 2B was being allowed to stand but could face future challenge. "To take one example, a person might be stopped for jaywalking in Tucson and be unable to produce identification," he wrote. "The first sentence of 2B instructs officers to make a 'reasonable' attempt to verify his immigration status with ICE if there is reasonable suspicion that his presence in the United States is unlawful. The state courts may conclude that, unless the person continues to be suspected of some crime for which he may be detained by state officers, it would not be reasonable to prolong the stop for the immigration inquiry." Tom Horne, the Arizona attorney-general, claimed the parts that were struck down were "minor". The Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio, who established a reputation for his tough approach to illegal immigrants, told a local television show that there was no racial profiling and that Arizona police officers have received extensive training to ensure that individual rights were respected. One of America's leading civil rights organisations, the Centre for Constitutional Rights, welcomed part of the ruling but expressed disappointment over the contentious police power. Vince Warren, executive director of the centre, said: "We are extremely disappointed that the court has endorsed Arizona's damaging policy of requiring police to stop and interrogate anyone they suspect to be present unlawfully." He added: "The supreme court has legitimised reactionary state