United States v. State of Alabama
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 17516
| 11th Cir. | 2012Background
- 2011-06-09: Alabama HB56 signed to curb illegal immigration; HB56 plus 2012 HB658 amendments form challenged regime.
- Multiple provisions (10,11,12,13,16,17,18,27,28,30) targeted immigration enforcement and employment, school data, and licensing.
- US and private plaintiffs sought pre-enforcement injunctions; district court partially granted and partially denied; injunctions entered against some provisions.
- Panel initially enjoined sections 10, 28; later restricted to 27 and 30; ultimately only sections 12 and 18 were enforced at one point.
- Arizona v. United States decision (2012) influenced panel’s view on preemption; this opinion issues under that framework.
- HB658 amendments clarified some provisions but the questions of preemption remained central to which sections could stand against federal law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is section 10 preempted by federal law | United States argues field preemption of alien registration | Alabama argues state complement to federal regime permissible | Section 10 preempted (field preemption) |
| Is section 11(a) preempted by federal law | United States claims criminalizing employees conflicts with IRCA | Alabama contends alignment with federal scheme | Section 11(a) preempted |
| Is section 12(a) preempted by federal law | US challenges immigration-status inquiries during detention | Section 12(a) warranted under Arizona framework | Not likely to succeed on preemption (not facially preempted at this stage) |
| Is section 16 preempted by federal law | IRCA §1324a(h)(2) preempts sanctions on employers | Alabama characterizes as tax deduction withholding, not sanction | Section 16 preempted |
| Is section 27 preempted by federal law | Section 27 expels unlawfully present aliens conflicting with INA removal framework | Contract-law vehicle to regulate immigration | Section 27 preempted |
Key Cases Cited
- Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492 (Supreme Court, 2012) (field preemption of alien-registration regime; guidance for preemption analysis)
- De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351 (Supreme Court, 1976) (historic police powers; preemption in immigration matters requires federal field occupancy)
- Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs’ Legal Committee, 531 U.S. 341 (Supreme Court, 2001) (preemption where federal objectives controlled by federal scheme)
- Crosby v. Nat’l Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363 (Supreme Court, 2000) (preemption due to federal regulatory scheme’s primacy; extraneous state sanctions improper)
- Pennsylvania v. Nelson, 350 U.S. 497 (Supreme Court, 1956) (perimeter of parallel state regulation in presence of federal framework)