Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights v. Governor of Georgia, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 17514

Georgia enacted HB 87 in 2011 to address illegal immigration; only §§7 and 8 are challenged on preemption.
Section 7 creates three offenses (transporting, harboring, inducing) involving an illegal alien, conditioned on other criminal activity and knowledge of status.
Section 8 authorizes immigration-status inquiries during lawful detention if identification is lacking, with limits on racial considerations.
Plaintiffs filed a preenforcement constitutional challenge to §7 and §8 in June 2011; district court preliminarily enjoined §7 and §8 as preempted.
Eleventh Circuit reviews standing de novo and injunctions for abuse of discretion; holds §7 preempted and §8 not likely preempted, remanding for further proceedings on the injunctions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiffs have standing to challenge §§7–8.	Kennedy and others have a credible threat of enforcement.	Standing requires concrete, imminent injury; preenforcement risk is insufficient.	Plaintiffs have standing to challenge §§7–8.
Whether §7 is preempted by the INA.	§7 conflicts with and is impliedly preempted by federal immigration penalties.	State law complements federal enforcement and serves legitimate goals.	§7 is preempted by the INA.
Whether §8 is preempted by the INA.	§8 would undermine federal enforcement priorities and deter cooperation with federal authorities.	Arizona v. United States permits similar state inquiries; §8 is not preempted on preenforcement grounds.	§8 not likely to be preempted at this stage.
Whether the district court correctly granted a preliminary injunction on §7 (and §8).	Irreparable harm and balance of equities favor enjoining §7; §8 less clear.	No irreparable harm; public interest favors enforcement.	Enjoin §7; reverse on §8; remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492 (2012) (preemption and field of immigrant regulation; supports limits on state regulation in a comprehensive federal scheme)
Pennsylvania v. Nelson, 350 U.S. 497 (1956) (federal preemption when Congress occupies the field)
De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351 (1976) (field of immigration regulation; federal dominance restrains state regulation)
Crosby v. Nat’l Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363 (2000) (conflict preemption; state law cannot supplement federal scheme in occupied field)
Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85 (1983) (federal question jurisdiction for preemption claims in injunction context)
Luckey v. Harris, 860 F.2d 1012 (11th Cir. 1988) (enables private party standing to challenge state enforcement actions)
Common Cause/Ga. v. Billups, 554 F.3d 1340 (11th Cir. 2009) (organizational standing when resources diverted to address challenged law)
Browning, 522 F.3d 1153 (11th Cir. 2008) (standing and preemption considerations in immigration context)
Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973) (prematurity of enforcement action; abusive reliance on probable cause)