United States v. State of South Carolina
720 F.3d 518
| 4th Cir. | 2013Background
- In 2011 South Carolina enacted Act 69, a package of immigration measures; Sections 4, 5, and 6(B)(2) are at issue.
- Section 4(A)/(C) criminalized an unlawfully present person being transported or sheltering to avoid detection; 4(B)/(D) criminalized third‑party transport/harboring with specified intent.
- Section 5 made it a misdemeanor for aliens 18+ to fail to carry an alien registration card (mirroring 8 U.S.C. § 1304(e)).
- Section 6(B)(2) prohibited displaying or possessing a false ID to prove lawful presence.
- The United States and civil plaintiffs (Lowcountry Immigration Coalition and others) sued in federal court on federal preemption grounds; the district court preliminarily enjoined Sections 4, 5, and 6(B)(2). The State appealed.
- On review, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunctions, concluding the sections were preempted (field and/or conflict) by federal immigration law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Do private parties have a right to sue to enjoin state laws as preempted under the Supremacy Clause / § 1983? | Plaintiffs: Yes; longstanding authority allows injunctive Supremacy Clause actions by private parties. | State: No; Supremacy Clause is not a source of private rights (relying on Douglas dissent). | Held: Plaintiffs have an implied right to seek injunctive relief for preemption; Douglas dissent does not displace precedent. |
| 2. Should the federal court abstain under Younger because state criminal enforcement is threatened? | Plaintiffs: Younger is inapplicable because no formal state prosecution had begun; plaintiffs may seek pre-enforcement relief. | State: Younger bars federal injunctions against threatened state criminal prosecution. | Held: Younger inapplicable where no formal proceedings have begun; pre-enforcement challenge permitted. |
| 3. Are Sections 4(A) and 4(C) (criminalizing transport/harboring by unlawfully present person) preempted? | Plaintiffs: Yes; these provisions criminalize mere presence/activity federal law treats as civil and intrude on federal removal/enforcement discretion. | State: They target actions (transport, harbor, shelter) not mere presence and reflect state police powers. | Held: Preempted (conflict); provisions effectively criminalize conduct federal law treats as civil and obstruct federal immigration objectives. |
| 4. Are Sections 4(B)/(D), Section 5, and Section 6(B)(2) preempted? | Plaintiffs: Yes; federal law comprehensively occupies harboring/transport, alien registration, and fraudulent immigration documents (field and conflict preemption). | State: These are complementary state crimes addressing public safety and ordinary fraud; no impossibility of dual compliance. | Held: Preempted (field and conflict); federal statutes and enforcement discretion occupy the field and state laws would interfere with federal scheme. |
Key Cases Cited
- Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012) (federal government has preeminent authority over immigration; field and conflict preemption principles applied)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (equitable principle permitting federal injunctions against state officers for constitutional violations)
- Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85 (1983) (private parties may seek federal jurisdiction to enjoin state regulation as preempted)
- Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941) (state law preempted where federal scheme occupies field and conflicts with federal objectives)
- Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977) (injunctions of state criminal statutes may be appropriate in exceptional circumstances to protect constitutional rights)
- Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., 422 U.S. 922 (1975) (pre-enforcement federal challenges to state criminal statutes can proceed when no state prosecution pending)
- United States v. Alabama, 691 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2012) (state anti‑harboring and related provisions preempted; persuasive circuit precedent)
- Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights v. Georgia, 691 F.3d 1250 (11th Cir. 2012) (state immigration enforcement provisions preempted under field/conflict doctrines)