Define: Support Our Law Enforcement And Safe Neighborhoods Act Of 2010

Support Our Law Enforcement And Safe Neighborhoods Act Of 2010
Support Our Law Enforcement And Safe Neighborhoods Act Of 2010
Quick Summary of Support Our Law Enforcement And Safe Neighborhoods Act Of 2010

The Support Our Law Enforcement And Safe Neighborhoods Act of 2010, also known as Arizona Senate Bill 1070, is a controversial immigration law passed in the state of Arizona. The law requires law enforcement officers to determine the immigration status of individuals they reasonably suspect to be in the country illegally. It also makes it a crime for immigrants to not carry their immigration documents and allows for the arrest of individuals without a warrant if there is probable cause to believe they are in the country illegally. The law has faced significant criticism for potentially leading to racial profiling and violating civil rights. It has also sparked a national debate on immigration policy and enforcement.

Full Definition Of Support Our Law Enforcement And Safe Neighborhoods Act Of 2010

The Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, commonly referred to as Arizona SB 1070, represents one of the most stringent anti-illegal immigration measures in the United States. Enacted by the state of Arizona in 2010, this law was designed to address the state’s concerns over illegal immigration, purportedly to enhance public safety and reduce the fiscal burdens associated with undocumented migrants. This overview examines the key provisions of the Act, its legal implications, challenges, and its broader impact on immigration policy and civil rights in the United States.


Arizona has a long history of dealing with immigration issues due to its geographic proximity to the U.S.-Mexico border. By 2010, the state’s policymakers felt compelled to take aggressive action against illegal immigration, citing concerns over crime, drug trafficking, and economic costs. This led to the drafting and subsequent passage of SB 1070, sponsored by State Senator Russell Pearce and signed into law by Governor Jan Brewer on April 23, 2010.

Key Provisions of the Act

The Act includes several controversial provisions aimed at curbing illegal immigration through stringent enforcement mechanisms. The major sections of the Act include:

  • Section 2(B): This section, often referred to as the “show me your papers” provision, requires law enforcement officers to verify the immigration status of any individual they stop, detain, or arrest if there is “reasonable suspicion” that the person is unlawfully present in the United States. This provision mandates cooperation with federal immigration authorities.
  • Section 3: This section makes it a state crime for an alien to fail to carry registration documents as required by federal law. Thus, immigrants are required to always have their immigration documents in their possession.
  • Section 5(C): This provision makes it unlawful for an undocumented immigrant to solicit, apply for, or perform work. It targets day labourers and those seeking employment on street corners.
  • Section 6: This section grants law enforcement officers the power to arrest without a warrant any individual they believe has committed a public offence that makes them removable from the United States.
  • Section 10: This provision prohibits individuals from transporting, moving, concealing, harbouring, or shielding unauthorized aliens if the transporter knows or recklessly disregards the fact that the alien is in the U.S. illegally.

Legal Challenges and Judicial Review

The Act was met with immediate backlash and prompted numerous legal challenges, primarily on grounds of potential racial profiling and the infringement of federal authority over immigration enforcement. The most notable lawsuit was filed by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in United States v. Arizona, arguing that SB 1070 usurped federal immigration laws and enforcement.

District Court Rulings

On July 28, 2010, Judge Susan Bolton of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona issued a preliminary injunction blocking the enforcement of key provisions of SB 1070, including Sections 2(B), 3, 5(C), and 6. Judge Bolton’s ruling emphasised that these sections likely conflicted with federal immigration law and raised concerns about pre-emption, where state laws interfere with federal jurisdiction.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

The case was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the district court’s injunction. The appellate court’s decision reinforced the view that immigration enforcement is predominantly a federal responsibility, and state laws like SB 1070 could not supersede or interfere with federal regulations and priorities.

Supreme Court Ruling

The legal battle culminated in the U.S. Supreme Court’s review in Arizona v. United States (2012). The Supreme Court issued a mixed ruling:

  • The Court upheld Section 2(B), allowing police to check the immigration status of individuals stopped for other reasons, provided that the enforcement does not extend the stop duration excessively.
  • Sections 3, 5(C), and 6 were struck down on the grounds of federal pre-emption. The Court ruled that these provisions encroached upon the federal government’s exclusive authority to regulate immigration.

Impact and Criticism

Impact on Immigrant Communities

SB 1070 had a profound impact on immigrant communities in Arizona, instilling fear and anxiety among undocumented immigrants and even legal residents who might be mistakenly targeted. The “show me your papers” provision, in particular, raised concerns about racial profiling, as critics argued that it would lead to discrimination against Hispanic individuals regardless of their immigration status.

Legal and Political Repercussions

The Act also sparked significant legal and political discourse nationwide. Several states considered similar laws, but many were deterred by the legal challenges faced by Arizona. The federal government’s successful challenge of SB 1070 reaffirmed the principle that immigration enforcement is a federal prerogative.

Civil Rights Concerns

Civil rights organisations, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), argued that SB 1070 violated constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures (Fourth Amendment) and equal protection under the law (Fourteenth Amendment). These groups contended that the law would inevitably lead to racial profiling and discrimination.

Economic Impact

Economically, SB 1070 had mixed repercussions for Arizona. Some businesses, particularly in sectors relying on immigrant labour, reported shortages and increased costs due to the departure of workers fearing deportation. Conversely, proponents of the law argued that it helped reduce the financial burden on public services and improved job opportunities for legal residents.

It’s Broader Implications for U.S. Immigration Policy

The passage and subsequent legal battles over SB 1070 significantly influenced the national dialogue on immigration reform. It highlighted the tensions between state and federal authorities over immigration policy and enforcement. While some states sought to emulate Arizona’s tough stance, others reinforced protections for immigrants to prevent similar controversies and legal challenges.

Influence on Federal Immigration Policy

The controversy surrounding SB 1070 and similar state laws underscored the need for comprehensive federal immigration reform. It pushed the Obama administration and subsequent administrations to consider more robust federal policies to address immigration challenges, balancing enforcement with pathways to legal status for undocumented immigrants.

Legacy and Continuing Debate

A decade after its enactment, the legacy of SB 1070 remains contentious. The law is seen by its supporters as a necessary measure to combat illegal immigration and by its detractors as a draconian policy that undermines civil liberties and promotes racial discrimination. The debate over SB 1070 continues to reflect broader societal divides over immigration policy, national identity, and the balance between security and civil rights.


The Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act of 2010 represents a critical juncture in U.S. immigration policy and law enforcement. Its stringent provisions, legal battles, and the ensuing Supreme Court decision underscore the complex interplay between state and federal jurisdictions in immigration enforcement. While it aimed to address legitimate concerns over illegal immigration, SB 1070 also sparked significant debate over civil rights and the proper scope of state power. As such, it serves as a pivotal case study in the ongoing discourse on immigration reform in the United States.

Support Our Law Enforcement And Safe Neighborhoods Act Of 2010 FAQ'S

The Support Our Law Enforcement And Safe Neighborhoods Act Of 2010, also known as Arizona SB 1070, is a controversial immigration law passed in Arizona that aimed to combat illegal immigration by allowing law enforcement to check the immigration status of individuals they suspect to be in the country illegally.

Many provisions of the law were struck down by the Supreme Court in 2012, but some parts of it remain in effect. It is important to consult with a legal professional to understand the current status of the law.

The law allows law enforcement officers to inquire about an individual’s immigration status during a lawful stop, detention, or arrest if there is reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country illegally.

The law allows for individuals to be detained if there is reasonable suspicion of being in the country illegally, but it has faced legal challenges regarding racial profiling and discrimination.

The law includes provisions for penalties against employers who knowingly hire undocumented immigrants, including the suspension or revocation of their business licenses.

The law includes provisions for prosecuting individuals who knowingly harbor or transport undocumented immigrants, with penalties including fines and imprisonment.

The law requires non-citizens to carry their immigration documents at all times and present them upon request by law enforcement.

The law allows for individuals to be arrested if they fail to carry their immigration documents, but it has faced legal challenges regarding potential violations of constitutional rights.

The law does not grant the authority to deport individuals, as immigration enforcement is under federal jurisdiction. However, it allows for individuals to be detained and turned over to federal immigration authorities.

Yes, individuals and organisations have the right to challenge the enforcement of the law in court if they believe it violates their constitutional rights or is being applied unlawfully.

Related Phrases
No related content found.

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: 6th June 2024.

Cite Term

To help you cite our definitions in your bibliography, here is the proper citation layout for the three major formatting styles, with all of the relevant information filled in.

  • Page URL:
  • Modern Language Association (MLA):Support Our Law Enforcement And Safe Neighborhoods Act Of 2010. DLS Solicitors. June 12 2024
  • Chicago Manual of Style (CMS):Support Our Law Enforcement And Safe Neighborhoods Act Of 2010. DLS Solicitors. (accessed: June 12 2024).
  • American Psychological Association (APA):Support Our Law Enforcement And Safe Neighborhoods Act Of 2010. Retrieved June 12 2024, from website:
Avatar of DLS Solicitors
DLS Solicitors : Family Law Solicitors

Our team of professionals are based in Alderley Edge, Cheshire. We offer clear, specialist legal advice in all matters relating to Family Law, Wills, Trusts, Probate, Lasting Power of Attorney and Court of Protection.

All author posts