Universal Contracting, LLC v. Utah Department of Commerce, 69 F. Supp. 3d 1225

Universal Contracting, LLC (Utah LLC) is an unincorporated construction-trade entity with ~900 member-owners (not employees); it performs administrative services and holds a Utah contractor license via a qualifying employee.
Utah enacted 2011 amendments (S.B. 35) to the Construction Trades Licensing Act making it unlawful or ‘‘unprofessional’’ for unincorporated licensees to have owners who engage in construction in Utah while not lawfully present, and forbidding providing such owners as labor to others; penalties include citations, fines, license sanctions, and possible misdemeanor charges, with a safe-harbor for using an approved status verification system (e.g., E‑Verify).
DOPL issued six citations to Universal under the amended statute because six member-owners were not lawfully present; Plaintiff contested, appealed, and then sued claiming federal preemption under the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA).
Plaintiff moved for summary judgment seeking declaration that the Utah amendments are preempted (expressly and impliedly) by IRCA; at oral argument Plaintiff withdrew other constitutional claims and stipulated that denial supports judgment for Defendants.
The court found Plaintiff has Article III standing (actual citations and fines, appeal pending) but concluded the Utah amendments are not preempted by IRCA and denied summary judgment; judgment entered for Defendants and case dismissed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to sue	Universal: citations and fines create concrete, redressable injury	Defendants: did not contest standing	Court: Plaintiff has standing to challenge amendments
Express preemption under IRCA §1324a(h)(2)	Universal: amendments impose criminal/civil sanctions on conduct IRCA preempts (not saved)	State: amendments are licensing or similar laws within IRCA’s savings clause	Court: Majority of amendments are licensing laws within the savings clause; IRCA does not expressly preempt them
Implied preemption — field preemption	Universal: federal scheme preempts state criminal enforcement re: unauthorized workers	Defendants: IRCA expressly preserves state licensing authority; no field preemption	Court: No field preemption; savings clause, and Whiting allocation of authority, preclude field preemption
Implied preemption — conflict (impossibility/obstacle)	Universal: compliance with both laws impossible (cannot use E‑Verify for members; IRCA limits document requests) and state law creates strict liability undermining IRCA scheme	Defendants: Utah law targets ownership/licenses, not employer-employee rules; safe-harbor modeled on IRCA; entities can obtain E‑Verify self-checks or contract solutions	Court: No impossibility or material obstacle shown; Plaintiff failed to prove IRCA conflicts so as to preempt Utah law

Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Whiting, 563 U.S. 582 (plurality) (upholding state licensing sanctions and E‑Verify requirement as within IRCA savings clause)
Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012) (federal supremacy in immigration; framework for preemption analysis)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requirements for Article III)
Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363 (conflict preemption analysis and inquiry into federal statutory purpose)
Mount Olivet Cemetery Ass’n v. Salt Lake City, 164 F.3d 480 (10th Cir.) (state law must materially impede federal action to be conflict preempted)