Valle Del Sol v. State of Arizona, 732 F.3d 1006

Background

Arizona enacted S.B. 1070 (2010) containing Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2929, criminalizing transporting, concealing, harboring, or inducing "unauthorized aliens" under certain circumstances; penalties range from misdemeanor fines to felonies for larger groups.
§ 13-2929 makes it unlawful "for a person who is in violation of a criminal offense" to transport, harbor, or induce an alien who is unlawfully present; statutory text also requires the actor to "know or recklessly disregard" the alien's unlawful status.
Plaintiffs (an individual pastor who provides transport and sanctuary and several organizations delivering transportation/shelter to unauthorized immigrants) sought a pre-enforcement preliminary injunction; district court enjoined § 13-2929 as preempted by federal law.
The Ninth Circuit panel reviews standing, vagueness, and preemption; it upholds standing for both the individual (Luz Santiago) and organizational plaintiffs based on credible threat of prosecution and diversion of resources.
The court holds § 13-2929 void for vagueness because the phrase "in violation of a criminal offense" is incoherent; alternatively, even if reinterpreted, the statute is field- and conflict-preempted by the federal harboring/transportation scheme (8 U.S.C. § 1324 and related INA provisions).
The Ninth Circuit affirms the district court’s preliminary injunction; Judge Bea concurs in part and dissents from the court’s preemption analysis, arguing restraint because vagueness alone would resolve the case.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing	Santiago and orgs face credible threat of prosecution and diversion of resources, so they can seek pre-enforcement relief	Arizona says plaintiffs lack imminent threat or intent to violate a predicate offense	Plaintiffs (individual and organizations) have standing
Vagueness (Due Process)	§ 13-2929 is unclear because the phrase "in violation of a criminal offense" is unintelligible and gives no notice	Arizona urges a limiting construction (e.g., "in violation of a law or statute") to save the provision	Statute is facially void for vagueness; the phrase is nonsensical and cannot be judicially rewritten
Field preemption	Federal immigration law (esp. 8 U.S.C. § 1324 and related INA provisions) occupies the field of regulating harboring/transporting aliens	Arizona contends it may regulate similar conduct as part of traditional state police powers	§ 13-2929 is field preempted: federal scheme is comprehensive and demonstrates dominant federal interest
Conflict preemption	State statute creates inconsistent penalties, lacks federal safe harbors, and permits state prosecutions that undermine federal enforcement priorities and uniformity	Arizona argues alignment with federal goals and that state enforcement complements federal law	§ 13-2929 is conflict preempted (obstacle and practical interference with Congress’s calibrated federal scheme)

Key Cases Cited

Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492 (2012) (Supreme Court discussion of federal preemption in immigration and field preemption principles)
United States v. Arizona, 641 F.3d 339 (9th Cir. 2011) (prior Ninth Circuit review of S.B. 1070 provisions)
Babbitt v. United Farm Workers, 442 U.S. 289 (1979) (pre-enforcement standing for those deterred by threatened prosecution)
Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488 (2009) (Article III standing requirements for injunctive relief)
Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972) (void-for-vagueness standard)
Vill. of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, 455 U.S. 489 (1982) (facial vagueness requires showing statute lacks any core of meaning)
Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (preliminary injunction standards)
Ga. Latino Alliance for Human Rights v. Gov. of Ga., 691 F.3d 1250 (11th Cir. 2012) (sister-circuit decision finding similar state harboring law preempted)
Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941) (conflict-preemption framework and obstacle preemption principles)