Arizona v. U.S.
567 U.S. _____ (2012)
Facts
A case concerning a preemption dispute over immigration. Arizona passed S.B. 1070 the Support Our Law Enforcement and Neighborhoods Act to “discourage and deter unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by personas unlawfully present in the United States.” Before the Act could take effect, the federal government field suit claiming that federal immigration law preempted S.B. 1070 and that the law was facially unconstitutional. The federal district court ruled in favor of the government and issued a primarily injunction. The court of appeals affirmed. Arizona argued that the Act does not impose its own immigration standards and that it simply invokes cooperative federalism which has …show more content…
5-3 in favor of the United States. Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion. Justice Kagan did not participate.
Reasoning
1. The national government has significant power to regulate immigration due to its constitutional power to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization,” and that the Federal Government has used this power to create a comprehensive set of laws governing immigration. Arizona cannot pursue policies that undermine federal law.
2. Sections 3, 5(C), and 6 of the Act were preempted by federal law. Each section was preempted for the following reasons: Section 3 intruded on the process of alien registration; Section 5(C) imposed criminal sanctions on aliens who sought or accepted employment when U.S. law did not criminalize those activities; and Section 6 interfered with the system Congress had created for allowing the arrest of aliens who were in the United States unlawfully.
3. Section 2 (B) of the Act was not preempted as long as the implementation of it would not cause people to be detained longer than they would otherwise be, and its implementation does not result in some sort of racial profiling.
4. The judgement for the Court of Appeals is affirmed and reversed in part.
567 U.S. _____ (2012)
Facts
A case concerning a preemption dispute over immigration. Arizona passed S.B. 1070 the Support Our Law Enforcement and Neighborhoods Act to “discourage and deter unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by personas unlawfully present in the United States.” Before the Act could take effect, the federal government field suit claiming that federal immigration law preempted S.B. 1070 and that the law was facially unconstitutional. The federal district court ruled in favor of the government and issued a primarily injunction. The court of appeals affirmed. Arizona argued that the Act does not impose its own immigration standards and that it simply invokes cooperative federalism which has …show more content…
5-3 in favor of the United States. Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion. Justice Kagan did not participate.
Reasoning
1. The national government has significant power to regulate immigration due to its constitutional power to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization,” and that the Federal Government has used this power to create a comprehensive set of laws governing immigration. Arizona cannot pursue policies that undermine federal law.
2. Sections 3, 5(C), and 6 of the Act were preempted by federal law. Each section was preempted for the following reasons: Section 3 intruded on the process of alien registration; Section 5(C) imposed criminal sanctions on aliens who sought or accepted employment when U.S. law did not criminalize those activities; and Section 6 interfered with the system Congress had created for allowing the arrest of aliens who were in the United States unlawfully.
3. Section 2 (B) of the Act was not preempted as long as the implementation of it would not cause people to be detained longer than they would otherwise be, and its implementation does not result in some sort of racial profiling.
4. The judgement for the Court of Appeals is affirmed and reversed in part.