567 U.S. 387 (2012)
In 2010, the State of Arizona enacted the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, commonly known as S. B. 1070.1
The statute's stated purpose is to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States.2 Arizona officials described the law as establishing a policy of attrition through enforcement.3
S. B. 1070 contains four provisions that became the focus of litigation.4 Section 3 makes it a state misdemeanor to willfully fail to complete or carry an alien registration document in violation of federal law.5 Section 5(C) makes it a misdemeanor for an unauthorized alien to knowingly apply for work, solicit work in a public place, or perform work as an employee or independent contractor in Arizona.6 Section 6 authorizes state and local officers to arrest without a warrant a person whom the officer has probable cause to believe has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.7 Section 2(B) requires officers conducting a stop, detention, or arrest to make reasonable efforts, in some circumstances, to verify the person's immigration status with the Federal Government.8
The United States filed suit against Arizona in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, seeking to enjoin enforcement of these provisions.9 The District Court issued a preliminary injunction preventing the four provisions from taking effect.10 The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the injunction in 2011.11
Arizona experiences significant effects from unlawful immigration.12 Hundreds of thousands of deportable aliens are apprehended in the State each year, and unauthorized aliens are estimated to comprise almost six percent of the population.13 In Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix, unauthorized aliens are reported to account for a disproportionate share of serious crime.14
The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Ninth Circuit's decision.15
Whether Section 3 of Arizona's S. B. 1070 is preempted by federal law?16
Under the Supremacy Clause, federal law preempts state law when Congress has occupied the entire field with a pervasive regulatory framework so comprehensive that it leaves no room for the States to supplement it.17 This intent can be inferred from the structure and purpose of the federal alien registration statutes that create a single integrated system.18
Yes. The federal government maintains a comprehensive alien registration regime that requires aliens to register with the Federal Government, carry proof of status, and face federal penalties for noncompliance under statutes such as 8 U.S.C. §§1304(e) and 1306(a).19 Section 3 of S. B.
1070 adds a state misdemeanor for the willful failure to complete or carry an alien registration document in violation of those same federal provisions.20 The established facts show that Arizona enacted S. B. 1070 in 2010 to address the large number of unlawful aliens within its borders through a policy of attrition through enforcement.21
This state enforcement mechanism intrudes on the field of alien registration that Congress has reserved for its exclusive governance.22 Because the federal scheme is designed as a harmonious whole that does not permit complementary or auxiliary state regulation, Section 3 is preempted even though it adopts the same substantive standards as federal law.23
Section 3 of Arizona's S. B. 1070 is preempted by federal law.24
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Scalia maintained that it is beyond question that a State may make violation of federal law a violation of state law as well.25 This principle holds even when the interest protected is a distinctively federal interest.26 He emphasized that the principle applies with greater force when the State protects its own sovereign interest in the integrity of its borders.27
The federal alien registration system is not of uniquely federal interest.28 States, private entities, and individuals rely on the federal registration system on a regular basis.29 Arizona has a legitimate interest in protecting its unemployment-benefits system and other laws that turn on alien status.30
This interest provides an entirely adequate basis for making the violation of federal registration and carry requirements a violation of state law as well.31
Whether Section 5(C) of Arizona's S. B. 1070 is preempted by federal law?32
Yes. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 establishes a comprehensive framework for combating the employment of illegal aliens.35 It imposes criminal and civil penalties on employers who knowingly hire unauthorized workers while providing only civil penalties on aliens who seek or engage in unauthorized employment.36 Section 5(C) of S.
B. 1070 imposes criminal penalties on unauthorized aliens who knowingly apply for, solicit, or perform work in Arizona.37 The established facts demonstrate that Arizona passed the statute to deter unlawful economic activity by persons unlawfully present.38 This state criminal prohibition conflicts with the method of enforcement chosen by Congress, which rejected proposals to criminalize unauthorized work by aliens after careful consideration.39
Because Section 5(C) interferes with the careful balance Congress struck, it is preempted as an obstacle to federal objectives.40
Section 5(C) of Arizona's S. B. 1070 is preempted by federal law.41
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Thomas concluded that there is no conflict between the ordinary meaning of the relevant federal laws and Section 5(C) of S. B. 1070.42
Federal law expressly preempts States from imposing civil or criminal sanctions upon those who employ unauthorized aliens.43 But it leaves States free to impose criminal sanctions on the employees themselves.44 He rejected the purposes-and-objectives theory of implied preemption as inconsistent with the Constitution.45
Under the Supremacy Clause, preemptive effect is to be given to congressionally enacted laws, not to judicially divined legislative purposes.46 Even assuming some tension between Arizona's law and supposed congressional purposes, he would not hold that Section 5(C) is preempted on that basis.47
Whether Section 6 of Arizona's S. B. 1070 is preempted by federal law?48
State law is preempted when it creates an obstacle to the federal removal system. This occurs by authorizing state officers to exercise greater arrest authority over removable aliens than Congress has granted to trained federal immigration officers or permitted to state officers without federal direction and supervision.49
Yes. Federal law specifies limited circumstances in which state officers may perform immigration functions, generally requiring formal agreements with the Attorney General or other specific conditions such as the likelihood of escape before a warrant can be obtained.50 Section 6 of S. B.
1070 authorizes state and local officers to arrest without a warrant any person they have probable cause to believe has committed a public offense that makes the person removable.51 The established facts indicate that Arizona experiences hundreds of thousands of deportable alien apprehensions each year and enacted the provision as part of its attrition-through-enforcement policy.52 This unilateral state arrest authority allows officers to act without input from the Federal Government and exceeds the limited authority Congress has extended to state officers, thereby creating an obstacle to the federal scheme that entrusts removal decisions to federal discretion.53
Section 6 of Arizona's S. B. 1070 is preempted by federal law.54
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Alito dissented from the holding that Section 6 is preempted.55 He reasoned that the provision adds little to the inherent authority of state and local officers to arrest for violations of federal law.56 Any additional authority conferred is consistent with federal statutes recognizing state cooperation in the apprehension of aliens not lawfully present in the United States.57
Section 1357(g)(10)(B) makes clear that States need not enter into formal agreements to cooperate in the identification, apprehension, detention, or removal of aliens not lawfully present.58 He emphasized that a facial challenge fails because many applications of the provision would not conflict with federal law.59 The Executive retains complete discretion over whether criminal aliens are ultimately removed, and once the Federal Government determines that a particular criminal alien will not be removed, Arizona officers are presumably no longer authorized under Section 6 to arrest the alien.60
Whether the preliminary injunction against Section 2(B) of Arizona's S. B. 1070 was properly granted?61
A preliminary injunction against a state law is improper when the provision can be construed to avoid conflict with federal law, the record does not show that enforcement will in fact conflict with federal objectives, and state courts have not yet had an opportunity to interpret the statute.62
No. Section 2(B) requires officers to make reasonable efforts to verify immigration status during stops, detentions, or arrests when reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien unlawfully present, subject to built-in limitations including a presumption of lawful status upon presentation of valid identification and requirements of consistency with federal law.63 The established facts show that the United States sought to enjoin the provision before it took effect and that Arizona bears significant consequences from unlawful immigration.64 At this stage the mandatory status checks do not necessarily interfere with federal enforcement priorities, and the provision can be read to require checks only during lawful detentions without prolonging them solely for immigration verification.65 Without a definitive state-court construction or evidence of actual conflict on the record, the preliminary injunction was improperly granted.66
The preliminary injunction against Section 2(B) of Arizona's S. B. 1070 was not properly granted.67
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Scalia agreed that the challenge to Section 2(B) fails at this pre-enforcement stage.68 The Government's concession that state officers already possessed authority to inquire about immigration status makes it impossible to find conflict without a factual record of actual implementation.69 The Government's pre-enforcement challenge has pretermitted any such record.70
He noted that any prolonged detention concerns are governed by the Fourth Amendment rather than preemption doctrine.71 A detention based on reasonable suspicion that the detainee committed a particular crime can become unlawful if prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete that mission, but that has nothing to do with this case.72