Arizona v. United States
**Overview of Arizona v. United States**
Arizona v. United States was a landmark Supreme Court case that addressed the legality of Arizona's immigration law, S.B. 1070, enacted in 2010. The law permitted state and local police to enforce certain provisions related to the legal status of individuals suspected of being illegal aliens. The federal government challenged the law, arguing that it was preempted by federal immigration law, leading to a series of legal battles. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled on several provisions of S.B. 1070 in 2012, determining that most of the law conflicted with federal authority over immigration matters.
The Court found that the federal government holds the primary power to govern immigration, emphasizing the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, which establishes federal law as supreme over state law. Three specific provisions of Arizona's law were struck down, while the Court left open the potential for challenges related to racial profiling in enforcement of one remaining provision. This case set important precedents regarding state versus federal authority in immigration policy and had significant implications for other states’ immigration laws. The ruling reaffirmed the complexities of immigration law and the ongoing debates surrounding it in the United States.
Arizona v. United States
Date: June 25, 2012
Citation: 567 US ‗‗‗‗ (2012)
Issue: Federalism
Significance: In a 5–3 decision, the Court overturned three provisions of an Arizona law that made illegal aliens liable to some criminal charges on the grounds that federal law should prevail in immigration matters. The Court upheld one part of the law that a lower court had overturned.
Background
From the 1990s well into the mid-2010s, illegal immigration was a major issue of public debate. The number of illegal aliens living in the United States was estimated to rise from about 2.5 million people to a peak of 12.2 million in 2007. Those concerned about the issue charged that illegal aliens take jobs from citizens, drive down wages, unfairly receive government benefits, and place demands on local resources like schools and hospitals. Critics charged that the federal government did too little to find and deport these individuals. Demands for action were particularly strong in some areas with high populations of illegal aliens, including the Southwest.
In 2010, the Arizona state legislature passed a law (S.B. 1070) that applied certain criminal charges to illegal aliens and gave police the power to ascertain the legal status of those they suspected of being illegal aliens. The federal government sued in district court to have enforcement of the law stopped, on the grounds that the law was preempted by federal law. The district court barred Arizona from enforcing four provisions of its law: (1) Section 3 made it a state crime not to comply with federal alien-registration requirements; (2) Section 5(C) made it a crime for an illegal alien to work or look for work in the state; (3) Section 6 empowered state and local police to arrest anyone they had reasonable cause to think is an illegal alien; and (4) Section 2(B) required police, when they detain or arrest someone, to try to confirm the individual’s status. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court decision. Arizona appealed to the US Supreme Court, which accepted the case. The Court heard oral arguments in December 2011 and issued its ruling the following June. (Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the case, perhaps because she had worked on it while serving as the solicitor general before joining the Court.)
Opinion of the Court
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, asserted first that "The Government of the United States has broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration and the status of aliens." While acknowledging that the presence of illegal aliens creates issues for states like Arizona, Kennedy pointed out that the Constitution confers ultimate authority to the federal government when federal and state laws conflict: "The Supremacy Clause provides a clear rule that federal law ‘shall be the supreme Law of the Land’" [Article VI, clause 2.]. . . . Under this principle, Congress has the power to preempt state law."
Kennedy discussed each of the four provisions in detail. He agreed that federal law preempts Sections 3, 5(C), and 6 of S.B. 1070. On Section 2(B), Kennedy rejected the preemption argument but said that there was the possibility of potential charges of discrimination through racial profiling in its enforcement. That depended on police action, however, and judgment on the issue would have to be reserved unless and until challenges to enforcement reached the Court.
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a dissent that agreed with the Court’s decision on Section 2(B), but disagreed on the other three. He stated that the majority decision deprives states of their power "to exclude from the sovereign’s territory people who have no right to be there." Declaring that to be contrary to the Constitution, Scalia said that the three provisions should be allowed to stand. In a separate dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas said that there is no substantive difference between Arizona provisions and federal law, so the Arizona law should be allowed to stand. Justice Samuel Alito also wrote a separate dissent, agreeing with the decisions on Sections 3 and 2(B) but disagreeing with the other two. Section 5(C) falls within state authority over employment law, he wrote. Section 6 does not give state police any additional powers that are inconsistent with federal powers.
Impact
The Court’s decision quickly had an effect. Later in 2012, the Eleventh Circuit upheld injunctions preventing enforcement of parts of laws passed in Alabama and Georgia affecting illegal aliens. In July 2013, the Fifth Circuit ruled against a law passed in Farmers Branch, Texas, which sought to bar illegal aliens from renting in the town. Similarly, the Fourth Circuit struck down parts of a South Carolina law on the grounds of preemption, based on Arizona v. United States. In Pedro Lozano v. City of Hazelton, the Third Circuit overturned two ordinances passed by Hazelton, Pennsylvania, that banned illegal aliens from holding jobs or renting property in the town.
However, these decisions did leave some state and local provisions in place. The Eleventh Circuit’s ruling in the Alabama case, for instance, allowed state penalties against illegal aliens who apply for a driver’s license, noting federal leeway granted to states on such matters. In addition, a 2011 Supreme Court decision (Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting) permitted another Arizona law that allowed the state to revoke business licenses of businesses that hired illegal aliens. These decisions suggested that federal authority over immigration was not complete.
While the Court’s decision in Arizona referred to the supremacy clause of the US Constitution, Justice Kennedy did so was only to establish the power of Congress to preempt state law. The specific rules regarding immigrant status, registration, and similar issues are statutory rather than constitutional, however. Thus, it remained possible that Congress could pass new laws that would allow states some power in passing and enforcing laws similar to S.B. 1070.
The issue of enforcement of Section 2(B) remained an open question. When signing the S.B. 1070 into law, Arizona’s governor Jan Brewer tried to diffuse the possibility of discrimination lawsuits over implementation by issuing an executive order. That order said, in part, that state police had to take part in training to "provide clear guidance . . . regarding what constitutes reasonable suspicion, and . . . make clear that an individual’s race, color or national origin alone cannot be grounds for reasonable suspicion."
Bibliography
Arizona v. United States. 567 US ‗‗‗‗ 2012. Supreme Court of the United States. Supreme Court of the U.S., 2004. Web. 18 Jan. 2016. <http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-182b5e1.pdf>.
"Arizona v. United States." Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech, n.d. Web. 18 Jan. 2016. <https://www.oyez.org/cases/2011/11-182 >.
Coleman, Jennifer. "A Divisive Split in the Eighth, Fifth, and Third Circuits: What the Courts Have to Say about States and Communities Taking Immigration into Their Own Hands." Georgetown Immigration Law Journal 27.4 (2013): 871–883. Print.
"The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription." The Charters of Freedom. National Archives and Records Administration, n.d. Web. 15 Jan. 2016. <https://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution‗transcript.html>.
Lewis, Melinda R. "A ‘Right without a Remedy’: An Analysis of the Sovereign Immunity Issues Implicated by State Power (or the Lack Thereof) over Immigration Following Arizona v. United States." Georgetown Immigration Law Journal 26.3/4 (2012): 629–651. Print.
Manual, Kate M., and Michael John Garcia. "Arizona v. United States: A Limited Role for Sates in Immigration Law Enforcement." Congressional Research Service, 2012. Web. 18 Jan. 2016. <https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R42719.pdf>.
Pedro Lozano v. City of Hazelton. 07-3531 (3rd Cir. 2013). United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. USCourts.gov, 2013. Web. 18 Jan. 2016. <http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/073531p.pdf>.
Ross, Janell. "Three Things to Know about Illegal Immigration as America Debates Sanctuary Cities," WashingtonPost.com, 8 July 2015. Web. 18 Jan. 2016. <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/07/08/3-things-to-know-about-illegal-immigration-as-america-debates-sanctuary-cities/>.
United States v. South Carolina. 12-1096 (4th Cir. 2013). United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. USCourts.gov, 2013. Web. 18 Jan. 2016. <http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/Published/121096.p.pdf>.
Villas at Parkside Partners v. City of Farmers Branch. 10-10751 (5th Cir. 2013). United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. USCourts.gov, 2013. Web. 18 Jan. 2016. <http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cpub%5C10/10-10751-CV1.wpd.pdf>.