Define: Arizona V. United States (2012)

Arizona enacted S.B. 1070, a law aimed at preventing illegal entry into the US. The Supreme Court examined four provisions of the law, ruling that three of them were in violation of federal law. However, one provision was deemed permissible, pending further evaluation of its effectiveness. The Court emphasized that the federal government possesses the authority to establish immigration regulations, thereby prohibiting states from enacting laws that contradict these regulations. Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito dissented from the majority opinion, advocating for greater state autonomy in determining who can enter their respective states. Justice Kagan did not participate in the decision.

The Supreme Court case of Arizona v. United States dealt with Arizona’s Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act (S. B. 1070). The case determined that certain provisions of the law were preempted by federal law, while one provision needed further examination before a decision could be made. In 2010, Arizona passed S. B. 1070 to discourage and deter unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by those unlawfully present in the United States. The law consisted of four provisions: Section 3 made it a state misdemeanor to fail to comply with federal alien-registration requirements. Section 5(C) made it a state misdemeanor for an unauthorized alien to seek or perform work in Arizona. Section 6 allowed officers to make warrantless arrests if there was probable cause to believe the person committed a public offence that made them removable from the United States. Section 2(B) required officers to verify a person’s immigration status with the Federal Government during certain stops, detentions, or arrests. The Supreme Court ruled that sections 3, 5(C), and 6 of S. B. 1070 were preempted by federal law, while section 2(B) needed further evaluation. The Court emphasized that the federal government has broad power to regulate immigration, and state laws conflicting with federal law are preempted. Sections 3, 5(C), and 6 were found to conflict with federal law and were therefore preempted. However, section 2(B) was not necessarily preempted and would be determined by state courts if it conflicted with federal immigration law. Section 3 of S. B. 1070, which made it a state misdemeanor to fail to comply with federal alien-registration requirements, was preempted because it duplicated existing federal law and disrupted the federal system for alien registration. Section 5(C), which made it a state misdemeanor for an unauthorized alien to seek or perform work in Arizona, was preempted due to the Immigration Reform and Control Act enacted by Congress in 1986, which specifically addressed the employment of illegal aliens. Section 6, which authorized warrantless arrests for public offences that made a person removable from the United States, was also preempted as it interfered with the removal system established by Congress. Section 2(B), which required officers to verify immigration status during certain stops, detentions, or arrests, was not necessarily preempted but required further examination before a decision could be made.

This site contains general legal information but does not constitute professional legal advice for your particular situation. Persuing this glossary does not create an attorney-client or legal adviser relationship. If you have specific questions, please consult a qualified attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.

This glossary post was last updated: 17th April 2024.