Mostly, no. Arizona's law goes too far and steps on the federal government's toes. However, the part about checking immigration status is okay for now. Immigration is a national issue, not a state-by-state one. The federal government already has a complete system for alien registration, so states can't add their own extra punishments. The federal government also made a plan to punish bosses who hire undocumented workers, not the workers themselves, and Arizona can't change that. Deciding who gets deported is a big federal decision, so Arizona police can't just start arresting people because they think they might be deportable. But simply asking the federal government for information during a legal stop is different, so that part of the law can stand unless it's used unfairly.

Yes, Arizona can pass these laws. States are like kings of their own castles, and a basic power of a king is to control who comes in. If the federal government isn't doing its job to secure the border, states shouldn't have to sit by and do nothing. Arizona is just helping to enforce the very laws the federal government is failing to enforce.

Yes, Arizona can pass these laws. The only question should be whether Arizona's law directly contradicts a federal law. It doesn't. Judges shouldn't be guessing about what Congress wanted; they should just read the actual laws. Since there's no direct conflict, the law is fine.

It's mixed. The part creating a new state crime for not having papers is not okay. But the parts about punishing workers and checking status are fine. States have always had the power to make rules about jobs. And letting police arrest people who might be deportable is just 'cooperating' with the federal government, which the law allows.

Yes, Arizona's law does interfere with the federal government's rules. The federal government has the main job of deciding who can stay in the country and how to enforce immigration laws. Arizona can't make laws that conflict with this or make it harder for the federal government to do its job. But one part of Arizona's law, about checking immigration status, might be okay depending on how it's enforced.

No, Arizona should be able to make its own rules to deal with unauthorized people because the federal government isn't doing enough to enforce its own laws. Arizona has the power to exclude people from its territory. Just because the federal government chooses not to enforce the law strictly doesn't mean Arizona can't.

No, the federal laws don't stop Arizona from making its own rules to enforce immigration laws. There's no clear sign that Congress didn't want states to help enforce these laws. Arizona's rules don't go against the normal meaning of the federal laws.

No, two key parts of Arizona's law don't go against federal law. One part about checking immigration status doesn't let state officers do more than federal law already allows. Another part about arresting removable immigrants who committed crimes is allowed because federal law lets state officers help with immigration enforcement. But Alito agrees another part of Arizona's law is not allowed.

No, Arizona cannot make its own laws to deal with people who are in the U.S. without permission because it interferes with the federal government's rules. The federal government has the main job of deciding who can stay in the country and how to enforce immigration laws. Arizona can't make laws that conflict with this or make it harder for the federal government to do its job. But one part of Arizona's law, about checking immigration status, might be okay depending on how it's enforced.

Yes, Arizona should be able to make its own rules to deal with unauthorized people because the federal government isn't doing enough to enforce its own laws. Arizona has the power to exclude people from its territory. Just because the federal government chooses not to enforce the law strictly doesn't mean Arizona can't.

Yes, the federal laws don't stop Arizona from making its own rules to enforce immigration laws. There's no clear sign that Congress didn't want states to help enforce these laws. Arizona's rules don't go against the normal meaning of the federal laws.

Yes, two key parts of Arizona's law don't go against federal law. One part about checking immigration status doesn't let state officers do more than federal law already allows. Another part about arresting removable immigrants who committed crimes is allowed because federal law lets state officers help with immigration enforcement. But Alito agrees another part of Arizona's law is not allowed.

"The Government of the United States has broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration and the status of aliens."

"Conflict preemption occurs when compliance with both federal and state laws is impossible, and when a state law `stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.'"

—the Supreme Court considered whether four provisions of an immigration enforcement scheme enacted by Arizona was preempted by federal law.

The Supreme Court struck down an Arizona immigration law's provisions that would penalize aliens who sought, or engaged in, unauthorized employment, because it "would interfere with the careful balance struck by Congress with respect to unauthorized employment of aliens."

… preempt state law in three ways. First, `Congress may withdraw specified powers from the States by enacting a statute containing an express preemption provision.'[Citation.] Second, `States are precluded from regulating conduct in a field that Congress, acting within its proper authority, has determined must be regulated by its exclusive guidance.'[Citation.] Finally, `state …

A principal feature of the removal system is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials

So it, too, "violates the principle that the removal process is entrusted to the discretion of the Federal Government."

"The Supremacy Clause provides a clear rule that federal law `shall be the supreme Law of the Land... any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.'"

—a case that was decided a quarter century after Salerno, the Court largely upheld a preenforcement preemption challenge to multiple provisions of an Arizona immigration law.

"Federalism, central to the constitutional design, adopts the principle that both the National and State Governments have elements of sovereignty the other is bound to respect."

Yes, as to Sections 3, 5(C), and 6; No, as to Section 2(B). Federal law preempts state laws that intrude on the federally occupied field of alien registration, create state criminal penalties for conduct Congress chose to regulate differently, and authorize state officers to make arrests based on removability, as these interfere with federal authority. However, a provision requiring state officers to check immigration status during a lawful stop is not preempted on its face. Section 3 is preempted because Congress has occupied the entire field of alien registration, establishing a 'complete scheme' that leaves no room for state regulation, complementary or otherwise, as established in *Hines v. Davidowitz*. Section 5(C) is preempted because it stands as an obstacle to the 'careful balance struck by Congress' in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), which deliberately chose to impose sanctions on employers rather than criminal penalties on unauthorized employees. Section 6 is preempted because it usurps the federal government's exclusive discretion in the removal process; granting state officers unilateral authority to arrest for removability interferes with federal enforcement priorities and the need for a single, national voice on immigration. Section 2(B), however, is not preempted on its face because it only requires communication between state and federal officials, which federal law permits. Any potential for unconstitutionally prolonged detentions is speculative at this pre-enforcement stage, and the Court presumes state courts will construe the statute to avoid such conflicts.

No, federal law does not preempt Sections 3, 5(C), and 6. States, as sovereigns, possess the inherent power to exclude persons from their territory, a power that was not abrogated by the Constitution. Federal action in the immigration field does not implicitly preempt this core state sovereign power. Arizona's law does not conflict with federal law but rather enforces federal restrictions more effectively, which is a permissible exercise of its own sovereignty, particularly when the federal executive has chosen a policy of lax enforcement. The state laws should be upheld as a valid exercise of Arizona's sovereign power to protect its borders.

No, federal law does not preempt Sections 3, 5(C), and 6. Preemption analysis should be limited to whether the ordinary meaning of a state law conflicts with the ordinary meaning of a federal statute. None of the challenged Arizona provisions directly conflict with the text of any federal law. The Court's reliance on 'purposes and objectives' preemption is an unconstitutional, freewheeling judicial inquiry into legislative intent that goes beyond the constitutional scope of the Supremacy Clause. Because there is no direct textual conflict, the Arizona laws are not preempted.

Yes, as to Section 3; No, as to Sections 5(C) and 6. Section 3 is preempted under the Court's precedent in *Hines v. Davidowitz*. However, Section 5(C) is not preempted because employment is an area of traditional state regulation, and there is a strong presumption against preemption; Congress's choice not to impose *federal* criminal penalties does not show a 'clear and manifest' intent to preempt *state* penalties. Section 6 is also not preempted because it adds little to existing state arrest authority and represents a form of cooperation with federal law, which is expressly permitted by federal statute. Many applications of Section 6 are consistent with federal law, especially where federal law mandates that certain criminal aliens be taken into custody.

Yes. Sections 3, 5(C), and 6 of S. B. 1070 are preempted by federal law because they conflict with the federal immigration scheme and enforcement discretion vested in the federal government, and they stand as obstacles to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. However, Section 2(B) is not preempted at this stage without a showing that its enforcement conflicts with federal immigration law and its objectives. Kennedy explains that the federal government has broad power over immigration, stemming from its constitutional power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization and its inherent sovereign power to control and conduct foreign relations. The states are precluded from regulating conduct in a field that Congress has determined must be regulated by its exclusive governance. State laws are also preempted when they conflict with federal law, including when they stand as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. Section 3 intrudes on the field of alien registration, a field in which Congress has left no room for states to regulate. Section 5(C) poses an obstacle to the regulatory system Congress chose by interfering with the careful balance struck by Congress with respect to unauthorized employment of aliens. By imposing criminal penalties on unauthorized workers, it conflicts with federal policy and objectives. Section 6 violates the principle that removal is entrusted to the discretion of the federal government, as it authorizes state officers to decide whether an alien should be detained for being removable. Section 2(B) could be read to avoid concerns about prolonged detention and is therefore not preempted at this stage.

No. Arizona's S. B. 1070 does not conflict with federal immigration laws as it seeks to assist in the enforcement of federal immigration policies that the Executive Branch has chosen not to enforce. The federal government's failure to enforce its own laws does not negate Arizona's right to enact and enforce such provisions. Scalia argues that Arizona, as a sovereign, has the inherent power to exclude persons from its territory, subject only to those limitations expressed in the Constitution or constitutionally imposed by Congress. He contends that the Executive's policy choice of lax federal enforcement does not constitute a prohibition on Arizona's ability to enact laws to protect its borders. Scalia would uphold Section 2(B), finding that state officers have the inherent authority to make warrantless arrests for violations of federal law and that this is not preempted by federal immigration law. He also finds Section 6 valid, as it does not expand the authority of state officers beyond what federal law permits. Scalia argues Section 3 is not preempted, as it does not establish additional or auxiliary regulations, but simply makes a violation of state law the very same failure to register and failure to carry evidence of registration that are violations of federal law. Finally, he contends that Section 5(C) is not preempted, as Congress has not made a clear choice to preclude states from imposing criminal penalties on employees.

No. The federal immigration laws do not preempt the provisions of Arizona's S. B. 1070. The state law does not conflict with federal law but rather enforces its provisions, and there is no evidence of a clear and manifest intent by Congress to preempt state immigration enforcement. Thomas argues that there is no conflict between the ordinary meaning of the relevant federal laws and that of the four provisions of Arizona law at issue. He contends that federal law does not prohibit Arizona from directing its officers to make immigration-related inquiries, as Section 2(B) does. Thomas also argues that states have inherent authority to conduct arrests for violations of federal law, and no federal statute precludes Arizona officers from arresting removable aliens, as Section 6 permits. He further contends that Section 3 is not preempted, as Congress has not expressed a clear intent to preclude states from enforcing federal alien registration requirements. Finally, Thomas argues that Section 5(C) is not preempted, as nothing in the text of federal immigration laws prohibits states from imposing their own criminal penalties on those who seek or obtain unauthorized employment.

No. Sections 2(B) and 6 of S. B. 1070 are not preempted as they do not conflict with federal law. Section 2(B) does not expand the authority of state officers beyond what federal law permits, and Section 6 allows for the arrest of individuals who have committed crimes that make them removable, which is not prohibited by federal law. Alito agrees that Section 2(B) is not preempted, as it does not authorize or require state officers to do anything beyond what federal law already allows. He contends the federal government's argument that Section 2(B) interferes with its enforcement priorities is not a basis for preemption, as those priorities are not law. Alito also argues Section 6 is not preempted, as it largely duplicates the authority state officers already possess and is consistent with federal law. He notes that federal law expressly permits state and local officers to cooperate in the apprehension, detention, or removal of aliens not lawfully present. While Alito agrees Section 3 is preempted under the Court's precedent, he dissents from the Court's holding on Section 5(C), arguing that it regulates an area of traditional state concern and Congress has not expressed a clear intent to preclude such state regulation.

Yes. Sections 3, 5(C), and 6 of S. B. 1070 are preempted by federal law because they conflict with the federal immigration scheme and enforcement discretion vested in the federal government, and they stand as obstacles to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. However, Section 2(B) is not preempted at this stage absent a showing that its enforcement conflicts with federal immigration law and its objectives. We note that the federal government has broad power over immigration, stemming from its constitutional authority to establish a uniform rule of naturalization and from its inherent sovereign power to control and conduct foreign relations. The states are precluded from regulating conduct in a field that Congress has determined must be regulated by its exclusive governance. State laws are also preempted when they conflict with federal law, including when they stand as obstacles to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. Section 3 intrudes on the field of alien registration, a field in which Congress has left no room for the states to regulate. Section 5(C) poses an obstacle to the regulatory system Congress selected by interfering with the careful balance struck by Congress with respect to unauthorized employment of aliens. By imposing criminal penalties on unauthorized workers, it conflicts with federal policy and objectives. Section 6 violates the principle that removal is entrusted to the discretion of the federal government, as it authorizes state officers to decide whether an alien should be detained for being removable. Section 2(B) could be read to avoid concerns about prolonged detention and is therefore not preempted at this stage.

No. Arizona’s S. B. 1070 does not conflict with federal immigration laws because it seeks to assist in enforcing federal immigration policies that the Executive Branch has chosen not to enforce. The federal government’s failure to enforce its own laws does not negate Arizona’s right to enact and enforce such provisions. Arizona, as a sovereign, has the inherent power to exclude persons from its territory, subject only to those limitations expressed in the Constitution or constitutionally imposed by Congress. The Executive’s policy choice of lax federal enforcement does not constitute a prohibition on Arizona’s ability to enact laws to protect its borders. Section 2(B) should be upheld because state officers have the inherent authority to make warrantless arrests for violations of federal law, and this is not preempted by federal immigration law. Section 6 is also valid since it does not expand the authority of state officers beyond what federal law permits. Section 3 is not preempted, as it does not establish additional or auxiliary regulations but simply makes a violation of state law the same failure to register and carry evidence of registration that are violations of federal law. Finally, Section 5(C) is not preempted because Congress has not made a clear choice to preclude states from imposing criminal penalties on employees.

No. The federal immigration laws do not preempt the provisions of Arizona’s S. B. 1070. The state law does not conflict with federal law but rather enforces its provisions, and there is no evidence of a clear and manifest intent by Congress to preempt state immigration enforcement. There is no conflict between the ordinary meaning of the relevant federal laws and the four provisions of Arizona law at issue. Federal law does not prohibit Arizona from directing its officers to make immigration-related inquiries, as Section 2(B) does. States have inherent authority to conduct arrests for violations of federal law, and no federal statute precludes Arizona officers from arresting removable aliens, as Section 6 permits. Section 3 is not preempted because Congress has not expressed a clear intent to preclude states from enforcing federal alien registration requirements. Finally, Section 5(C) is not preempted, as nothing in the text of federal immigration laws bars states from imposing their own criminal penalties on those who seek or obtain unauthorized employment.

No. Sections 2(B) and 6 of S. B. 1070 do not conflict with federal law and are not preempted. Section 2(B) does not expand the authority of state officers beyond what federal law permits, and Section 6 allows for the arrest of individuals who have committed crimes that make them removable, which is not prohibited by federal law. I agree that Section 2(B) is not preempted because it does not authorize or require state officers to do anything beyond what federal law already allows. The federal government’s assertion that Section 2(B) interferes with its enforcement priorities is not a valid basis for preemption, as those priorities are not law. Section 6 is also not preempted because it largely duplicates the authority state officers already possess and is consistent with federal law. Federal law expressly permits state and local officers to cooperate in the apprehension, detention, or removal of aliens not lawfully present. While I agree Section 3 is preempted under this Court’s precedent, I dissent from the Court’s holding on Section 5(C), because it regulates an area of traditional state concern and Congress has not clearly expressed an intent to preclude such state regulation.

Arizona v. United States

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot