Advertisement

June 19, 2013

Arizona v. United States: Supreme Court Reaffirms Federal Government’s Power in Immigration Arena

In a 5-3 decision authored by Justice Kennedy, the Supreme Court struck down most of the main provisions of an Arizona law targeting illegal immigration. The law, known as the “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act” or “S.B. 1070,” codified Arizona’s policy of “attrition through enforcement.” This policy presumes that undocumented individuals will leave the United States in response to unfavorable or hostile laws. Four provisions of the law were at issue in this case:

  • Section 3, criminalizing the “willful failure to complete or carry an alien registration document …”
  • Section 5(C), providing that it is 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].”
  • Section 6, enabling a police officer to proceed with a warrantless arrest “… if the officer has probable cause to believe … [the individual] has committed any public offense that makes [him or her] removable from the United States.”
  • Section 2B, empowering Arizona police officers to determine the immigration status of any individual stopped or arrested should “reasonable suspicion” exist that the person is illegally in the country.

In striking down Sections 3, 5(C), and 6, the Court advanced principles of federalism and preemption to expose how the provisions conflict, and in some cases undermine, the national government’s immigration regime. Accordingly, the Court found that these three provisions were preempted by federal law.

The Court did, nonetheless, uphold Section 2B. In so doing, the Court narrowly construed the provision, thus preventing an expansive application of the law. It also left open the possibility of civil rights challenges in the future. We expect to see challenges to this provision of the law, which will undoubtedly result in racial profiling in Arizona and states with similar laws.

Various states throughout the country have laws on their books that deal with immigration issues and many others are considering implementing immigration-related statutes. Employers must be mindful of both the federal and state laws that impact their businesses to ensure proper compliance. Mintz Levin will continue to monitor developments in Arizona and other states that have similar statutes.

For employers, the Court’s ruling in Arizona v. United States does not disturb current worksite obligations. Employers must remain vigilant not to hire or employ any undocumented worker, and must be prepared to handle a worksite raid. Federal and state contractors who are subject to E-Verify must ensure that they are using E-Verify properly and that covered subcontractors have also enrolled in the E-Verify program. An employer who violates federal immigration laws may be subject to civil sanctions and/or criminal prosecution.

©1994-2013 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

We’ve earned our national and international reputation for excellence and innovation, and our Immigration Practice attorneys serve as trusted business advisors for top-tier companies with offices throughout the world.

Mintz Levin has a successful track record working with—and lobbying—government entities involved in immigration and naturalization matters, including the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), the State Department (including consular offices abroad), and the Department of Labor.

(617) 348-4468

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.