"If it's a split decision, then I'll be happy with my side of the split," Brewer said immediately after the hearing. Also at the hearing were the measure's sponsor, Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, and Tom Horne, the Republican Party candidate for Arizona Attorney General in Tuesday's general election.

Pearce said he thought the hearing "went fairly well."

"We know this will survive," Pearce said of the law. "This is the most overturned court in the nation. We'll win it in the Supreme Court." Outside the court house, roughly 300 protesters, most against SB 1070, shouted slogans and waved signs. In Monday's hearing, judges went right to the point: they cut off discussion of a provision that forbids illegal immigrants from soliciting work because existing case law refuses to penalize workers. The judges seemed to have their minds made up about a provision requiring immigrants to show registration cards.

One judge asked Arizona's lawyer, John Bouma, how the state could enforce federal law.

"If I don't pay my federal income tax, can the state make me?" the judge asked.

The appellate panel seemed not to have problems with police officers asking about immigration status, but struggled with the notion implicit in the law that detainees could be held indefinitely while their immigration status was confirmed. The judges also questioned how a law enforcement officer could determine what constitutes a removable offense. After allowing each side a half-hour for oral arguments, the judges then took the matter under advisement. Locally, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu and Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever watched the hearings on television from the law offices of Jordan Rose in Scottsdale.

The three voiced frustration that sheriffs were not permitted to speak at the hearing in San Francisco. But they seemed pleasantly surprised by some of the judges' questioning, particularly comments that seemed to indicate allowing enforcement of part of the law that requires an officer to check an individual's legal status.

"The federal government is taking us to court to stop us from enforcing laws they should be enforcing. It's an insult to Arizona," Babeu said. "We need uniform enforcement across the state of Arizona."

Arpaio called the lawsuit a political move.

"Everybody wants the Hispanic vote, plus employers like to hire cheap labor," he said. "This all has to do with politics and that's a real shame."

SB1070 was signed into law in April, and quickly drew seven federal lawsuits. Most of them argue that immigration regulation is the jurisdiction of the federal government and not the state, and that SB 1070 could lead to racial profiling and the violation of individuals' constitutional rights.

Two of the seven have already been thrown out. Three others have been argued before U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton, who in July granted a preliminary injunction against parts of SB 1070 in response to a lawsuit brought by the U.S. Department of Justice.

The injunction, which puts the law on hold temporarily, is the only matter before the 9th Circuit.

Whether or not the law stands or is thrown out will not be decided by this court at this time.

In effect, the case has not even got off the ground yet--the attorneys have not gathered evidence or exchanged arguments other than whether the case should be tossed altogether or if the injunction should be imposed. In any event, it will have to be sent back to Bolton for settlement or trial.

The state's argument has consistently been that if the federal government will not enforce immigration law, then the state will. But the Justice Department maintains that the law is unconstitutional and that it may infringe on federal law.

In order to obtain an injunction, one party has to convince the judge that its case is likely to succeed on the merits. Bolton did not rule against the law in its totality. She imposed the injunction on four parts of the law: clauses that require that police check the immigration status of anyone they stop and then hold them until their status is verified--no matter how long it takes; she agreed that state law requiring immigrants to carry immigration papers may be pre-empted by federal law and that police officers could not determine whether a person had committed an offense that could lead to deportation; and she questioned a statute barring illegal immigrants from seeking jobs.

Those were the issues debated in court Monday morning.

It remains to be seen how the 9th Circuit will rule. The questions asked by appellate judges are only indications of which issues concern them, not how they will decide them. And weeks or months from now when they rule, the state or the federal government could ask the 9th Circuit to revisit the issue en banc, that is, by a larger panel of judges.

Brewer has vowed to take it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary.

And although the high court only accepts a fraction of the cases that are presented, it could take interest in this one because of its national implications.