Advertisement

April 19, 2014

Supreme Court Rejects Key Parts of Arizona’s Immigration Enforcement Law

On June 25, 2012, the United States Supreme Court ruled in a 5-3 decision to strike down three out of the four challenged provisions of Arizona’s immigration enforcement law, commonly known as S.B. 1070. The majority’s decision reaffirms the power of the federal government to set immigration policy and to preempt state laws that conflict with federal laws.

The Court blocked S.B. 1070 provisions that created new state misdemeanors for unauthorized aliens seeking or engaging in work in the state and for failure to complete or carry an alien registration document as required by federal statute. It also blocked the provision authorizing officers to arrest without a warrant a person whom an officer believes committed a public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.

The Court upheld the law’s best-known provision, which requires state law enforcement officers to make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of individuals they stop or arrest if there is reason to believe the individuals might be unlawfully present in the United States. The Court found it was improper to enjoin this part of the law before state courts had an opportunity to interpret it and without some evidence that the measure as enforced conflicts with federal immigration law.

This week’s highly anticipated decision follows last year’s other notable Supreme Court immigration ruling in Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America et al. v. Whiting et al. In Whiting, the Court upheld the Arizona law that provides for revocation of business licenses for employers that employ unauthorized workers and requires Arizona employers to use E-verify, a federal, internet-based system used to confirm the immigration status of employees. Several states have similar laws requiring the use of E-verify by state employers and contractors. The Court’s recent decisions did not overturn or change these state E-verify requirements.  Multi-state employers must continue the difficult task of navigating the patchwork of state E-verify requirements.

© MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP

About the Author

Jose A. Olivieri Michael Best Friedrich LLP
Partner

José A. Olivieri is a partner in the Milwaukee office. He is Chair of the Labor and Employment Relations Practice Group and Co-Chair of the Government and Public Policy Group. He has extensive experience in the area of employment-based immigration matters, including B (temporary visitor), E (treaty trader/investor), F and M (student), H (temporary worker), J (exchange visitor), L (intracompany transferee), O and P (outstanding artist, scientist, educator, businessperson and/or athlete), R (religious worker) and TN (NAFTA) status, as well as permanent labor certification, national...

414-225-4967

About the Author

Kelly M. Fortier Michael Best Law Firm immigration
Partner

Kelly Fortier is a partner in the Employment Relations Practice Group. Her practice includes representation of management in all aspects of employment law, with primary focus on employment-based immigration, including nonimmigrant petitions, permanent residence cases, naturalization applications, and employment verification issues. Her immigration work includes B (temporary visitor), E (treaty trader/investor), F (student), H (temporary worker), J (exchange visitor), L (intracompany transferee), O (extraordinary ability in the sciences, R (religious worker), and TN (NAFTA...

414-277-3460

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. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be  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.

The National Law Review - National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558  Telephone  (708) 357-3317 If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.