Arizona v. United States
132 S. Ct. 2492
| SCOTUS | 2012Background
- Arizona enacted SB 1070 in 2010 to deter unlawful entry and presence by aliens; law touted as attrition through enforcement.
- Four provisions at issue: §3 creates state misdemeanor for willful failure to carry alien registration; §5(C) makes unauthorized employment a state misdemeanor; §6 allows warrantless state arrests of removable aliens; §2(B) requires verification of immigration status during stops or detentions.
- U.S. sued to enjoin these provisions as pre-empted by federal immigration law; district court and Ninth Circuit preliminarily enjoined or upheld some provisions.
- Court’s central question: whether federal law pre-empts the four SB 1070 provisions under field, conflict, or other pre-emption doctrines.
- Court held: §§ 3, 5(C), and 6 pre-empted; §2(B) not pre-empted on the pre-enforcement record; case remanded for state-court construction of §2(B).
- Extra: discusses the federal government’s expansive immigration powers, field of alien registration, and the balance between federal supremacy and state sovereignty.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SB 1070 §3 is field-pre-empted | U.S. contends §3 intrudes on the federal alien-registration field. | Arizona argues §3 duplicates federal standards and serves state interests. | §3 pre-empted (field pre-emption). |
| Whether SB 1070 §5(C) is pre-empted | IRCA pre-empts state penalties on employers; §5(C) punishes employees. | State may punish unauthorized employment consistent with federal framework; not pre-empted. | §5(C) pre-empted (conflicts with federal employment framework). |
| Whether SB 1070 §6 is pre-empted | State arrest authority for removable aliens usurps federal removal framework. | States may assist and exercise limited arrest authority in cooperation with federal system; §6 not pre-empted. | §6 pre-empted (obstacle to federal removal framework). |
| Whether SB 1070 §2(B) is pre-empted | Mandatory status checks interfere with federal law’s cooperation framework and priorities. | Status checks track Congress’s invitation to state-federal cooperation; not pre-empted on facial terms. | §2(B) not pre-empted on current record; remanded for state-court construction; no enforcement conflict shown pre-enforcement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1941) (field pre-emption; comprehensive alien-registration system)
- Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363 (U.S. 2000) (conflict pre-emption; implied pre-emption not required to prove field pre-emption)
- Pennsylvania v. Nelson, 350 U.S. 497 (U.S. 1956) (avoidance of implied pre-emption where Congress has not displaced state power)
- Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218 (U.S. 1947) (field pre-emption; pervasive federal regulation leaves no room for state supplement)
- Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Assn., 505 U.S. 88 (U.S. 1992) (dissent on implied pre-emption; cited regarding field regulation concepts)
- De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351 (U.S. 1976) (traditional state authority in employment regulation; pre-emption based on congressional intent)
- Halter v. Nebraska, 205 U.S. 34 (U.S. 1907) (federal protection of national purposes; limits on state actions in certain contexts)
- California v. Zook, 336 U.S. 725 (U.S. 1949) (federal scheme; potential pre-emption when federal law administered as exclusive)