840 F. Supp. 2d 898
D.S.C.2011Background
- Act 69 (2011) imposes state criminal penalties and enforcement mechanisms related to unlawful presence in SC.
- Act 69 expands state authority to harbor, transport, or verify status of unlawfully present individuals.
- Two private actions and one US action seek to preliminarily enjoin challenged sections before Jan 1, 2012 effective date.
- Court held extensive briefing and heard argument on December 19, 2011; addressed standing, jurisdiction, preemption, and injunction standards.
- Act 69 sections at issue include 4(B),(D), 5, 6, and 15; challenged sections relate to harboring/transporting, alien registration, counterfeit IDs, and enforcement procedures.
- Court preliminarily enjoins Sections 4(B),(D), 4(A),(C), 5, and 6 (with 6(B)(2) separately addressed) while upholding preemption theories.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing of the parties | US and private plaintiffs have standing to challenge relevant sections. | Some private challenges lack injury in fact for full statute or certain sections. | US has standing to challenge 4,5,6,15; private plaintiffs stand to challenge 4,5,6; limited standing for 1/7. |
| Federal cause of action and jurisdiction | §1983 remedy exists for federal rights; Supremacy Clause claims are actionable. | No federal remedy or lack of authority to raise Supremacy Clause claims. | §1983 remedy exists; AG authority supported; federal question jurisdiction recognized. |
| Preemption—Subsections 4(B)/(D) | State harboring/transporting crimes undermine federal scheme; field preemption applies. | States may regulate in some immigration areas; potential cooperation concept. | Subsections 4(B)/(D) likely preempted (field preemption); conflict/obstacle concerns noted. |
| Preemption—Section 5 and related provisions | Alien registration materials uniquely federal; state enforcement risks chaos and foreign relations harms. | States may supplement federal enforcement in certain contexts. | Sections 5 and 6(B)(2) likely preempted; Section 15 preemption argued; federal field preemption sustained. |
| Preemption—Section 4(A)/(C) and Section 6 overall | Criminalizing unlawful presence conflicts with civil federal regime and priorities. | Cooperation and state enforcement policies compatible with federal goals. | Subsections 4(A)/(C) preempted; Section 6 preempted except 6(B)(2) addressed separately; foreign affairs concerns highlighted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941) (federal supremacy in immigration; state laws yield to federal program)
- Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275 (1875) (federal control over immigration preempts state statutes)
- DeCanas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351 (1976) (immigration regulation primarily federal; field preemption concerns)
- Gade v. Nat'l Solid Wastes Mgmt. Ass'n, 505 U.S. 88 (1992) (field vs. conflict preemption framework in regulatory schemes)
- Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009) (presumption against preemption; strong in traditional state-regulated areas)
- United States v. Arizona, 641 F.3d 339 (2011) (federal preemption in immigration enforcement contexts; circuit-level analysis)
- Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, 131 S. Ct. 1968 (2011) (preemption and federal-state balance in immigration employer sanctions)
- Toll v. Moreno, 458 U.S. 1 (1982) (Fourteenth Amendment and INA preemption for in-state tuition case)
- Hispanic Interest Coalition of Alabama v. Bentley, 2011 WL 5516953 (2011) (federal preemption considerations in Alabama-like immigration statutes)
- United States v. Alabama, 813 F. Supp. 2d 1282 (2011) (preemption and injunctions in harboring/transporting statutes (district court))
- Ga. Latino Alliance for Human Rights v. Deal, 793 F. Supp. 2d 1317 (2011) (injunction on Georgia-like immigration provisions; field preemption relevance)