Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case involving Arizona's SB 1070, a state law intended to increase the powers of local law enforcement that wished to enforce federal immigration laws. The issue is whether the law usurps the federal government's authority to regulate immigration laws and enforcement. The Court ruled that sections 3, 5(C), and 6 of S. B. 1070 were preempted by federal law but left other parts of the law intact, including a provision that allowed law enforcement to investigate a person's immigration status.
Background On April 23, 2010, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed into law SB 1070, which supporters dubbed the "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act". It made it a state misdemeanor for an illegal immigrant to be in Arizona without carrying registration documents required by federal law; authorized state and local law enforcement of federal immigration laws; and penalized those found to be knowingly sheltering, hiring, and transporting illegal immigrants.Arizona SB 1070, §1.
The bill's passage immediately sparked constitutional concerns over potential civil rights violations and encouraging of racial profiling. Tens of thousands of people demonstrated against the law in over 70 U.S. cities on May 1, 2010 (International Workers' Day). A rally in Los Angeles, attended by Cardinal Roger Mahony of the Roman Catholic Church, attracted between 50,000 and 60,000 people, with protesters waving Mexican flags and chanting "Sí se puede." The city had become the national center of protests against the Arizona law. Around 25,000 people were at a protest in Dallas, and more than 5,000 were in Chicago and Milwaukee. Rallies in other cities generally attracted around 1,000 people or so. There and in some other locations, demonstrators expressed frustration with what they saw as the administration's lack of action on immigration reform, with signs holding messages such as "Hey Obama! Don't deport my mama."
The case was filed by the United States Justice Department in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on July 6, 2010,7.06.10 DOJ Lawsuit http://www.justice.gov/opa/documents/az-complaint.pdf challenging Arizona SB 1070 as usurping the federal government's authority to regulate immigration laws and enforcement. The plaintiffs also referenced the notion of federal preemption and stated, "The Constitution and the federal immigration laws do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country." Additionally, the Justice Department, in its July 6, 2010, motion, requested for the federal courts to issue an injunction to enjoin enforcement of the law before it went into effect.US Motion for Preliminary Injunction http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/DOJ-AZ-brief-7-6-10.pdf Arizona responded to the motion.Arizona's response to Motion for Preliminary Injunction http://azgovernor.gov/dms/upload/PR_072010_USvAZDefendantsResponsePlaintiffMotionPI.pdf The 1976 precedent of De Canas v. Bica was relied upon in Arizona's Motion.
On Wednesday, July 28, 2010, Judge Susan R. Bolton blocked key portions of SB 1070 including "requiring police to check the immigration status of those they arrest or whom they stop and suspect are in the country undocumented would overwhelm the federal government's ability to respond, and could mean legal immigrants are wrongly arrested." Judge Bolton wrote in her ruling:Federal resources will be taxed and diverted from federal enforcement priorities as a result of the increase in requests for immigration status determination that will flow from Arizona
Governor Brewer promised to appeal the ruling by calling it "a temporary bump in the road."
Several states jointly filed a Proposed Brief of Amici Curiae. The brief supported Arizona. The States of Michigan, Florida, Alabama, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, and Virginia, along with the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, filed their proposed brief on July 14, 2010. The brief stated that it "defends the States' authority to concurrently enforce federal immigration laws, especially in light of the selective and even lack of enforcement of those laws by the Obama administration. Under the current situation, the States have lost control over their borders and are left to guess at the reality of the law."States' July 14 Amici http://www.michigan.gov/ag/0,1607,7-164-46849_47203-240761--,00.html The Latin American countries of Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Nicaragua, Paraguay, and Peru filed an amicus brief in support of the United States.
A group of 81 members of the United States Congress also filed a Proposed Brief of Amici Curiae.Trent Franks press release http://franks.house.gov/press_releases/480 Congressmen Amici http://republicans.judiciary.house.gov/Media/PDFs/U%20S%20%20v%20%20Arizona%20Amicus%207%2020%202010.pdf The brief supported Arizona.
On July 28, 2010, Judge Bolton issued an order denying in part and granting in part the United States' Motion for Preliminary Injunction heard the prior week.Bolton 7.28.10 Injunction Order http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/072810_ArizonaRuling.pdf
Among the provisions that would go into effect are the following: A.R.S. § 11-1051(A): prohibiting Arizona officials, agencies, and political subdivisions from limiting enforcement of federal immigration laws; A.R.S. § 11-1051(C)-(F): requiring state officials to work with federal officials with regard to undocumented immigrants; and, A.R.S. § 11-1051(G)-(L): allowing legal residents to sue any state official, agency, or political subdivision for adopting a policy of restricting enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law. See July 28, 2010, Order
An appeal of the US District Court's July 28, 2010, ruling was filed on July 29, 2010. A motion to expedite the normal appeal schedule was also filed. Arizona gave the following reasons for the motion to expedite:7.29.10 Arizona's Motion to Expedite Appeal http://azgovernor.gov/dms/upload/PR_072910_MotionForExpeditedBriefingSchedule.pdf Good cause exists to expedite this appeal under Ninth Circuit Rules 27-12 and 34-3 and 28 U.S.C. § 1657 because it is an appeal of a preliminary injunction enjoining several key provisions of SB 1070 that the Arizona Legislature determined were critical to address serious criminal, environmental, and economic problems Arizona has been suffering as a consequence of undocumented immigration and the lack of effective enforcement activity by the federal government. An expedited briefing schedule will not unreasonably burden the parties because it is consistent with the expedited briefing schedule Plaintiff-Appellee received for the initial ruling on its Motion for Preliminary Injunction, the issues on appeal are narrower than those the district court addressed and have largely been briefed by the parties, and the parties are well represented with sufficient counsel to brief the issues under the schedule Defendants-Appellants have proposed.
Governor Brewer requested the following appeal schedule: opening brief due August 12, 2010, response brief due August 26, 2010, reply brief due September 2, 2010, and oral argument during week of September 13, basically a 30-day schedule, almost twice the schedule allowed for the original motion for preliminary injunction.Defendant's Appeal http://azgovernor.gov/dms/upload/PR_072910_PreliminaryInjunctionAppeal.pdf
On July 30, 2010, the Appeals Court ordered the following appeal schedule: opening brief due August 26, 2010 response brief due September 23, 2010 reply brief due 14 days after response oral argument (hearing) during first week of November 2010
Ninth Circuit opinion and way to Supreme Court decision
On November 1, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard arguments in the case. The three-judge panel was composed of Judges Richard Paez, Carlos Bea, and John T. Noonan. On April 11, 2011, the Ninth Circuit panel upheld the district court's ban on parts of the law taking effect, thus ruling in favor of the Obama administration and against Arizona. Judge Richard Paez gave the majority opinion in which Judge John T. Noonan, Jr. joined, and Judge Carlos Bea dissented in part. Paez agreed with the administration's view that the state had intruded upon federal prerogatives. Noonan wrote in his concurrence: "The Arizona statute before us has become a symbol. For those sympathetic to immigrants to the United States, it is a challenge and a chilling foretaste of what other states might attempt."
On May 9, 2011, Governor Brewer announced that Arizona would appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court, rather than request a hearing en banc before the Ninth Circuit; the appeal was filed on August 10, 2011. In response, the Justice Department requested the Supreme Court to stay out of the case by saying that the lower courts actions were appropriate. Observers thought it likely that the Supreme Court would take up the matter, but if it declined to step in, the case most likely would be returned to the trial judge in the District Court to review the case on its merits and determine whether the temporary injunction that blocked the law's most controversial provisions should become permanent. The Supreme Court announced in December 2011 that it would review Arizona's Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, and oral arguments took place on April 25, 2012.
Supreme Court decision On December 12, 2011, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear the case. The court heard oral arguments for the case on April 25, 2012. Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the case, presumably because during her time as the United States Solicitor General under the Obama administration she had defended the federal government's position in the case.
On June 25, 2012, the Court struck down three of the four provisions of SB 1070. The majority opinion was written by Justice Kennedy and was joined by Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, and Justice Sotomayor. Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito all concurred in part and dissented in part in separate opinions that were joined by no other justice.
Justice Kennedy's majority opinion held that Sections 3, 5(C), and 6 were preempted by federal law.Arizona v. United States, No. 11-182. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-182b5e1.pdf The three provisions struck down required legal immigrants to carry registration documents at all times, allowed state police to arrest any individual suspected of being an illegal immigrant, and made it a crime for an illegal immigrant to search for or hold a job in the state.
All justices agreed to uphold the provision of the law allowing Arizona state police to investigate the immigration status of an individual stopped, detained, or arrested if they have reasonable suspicion that the individual is in the country illegally. However, Justice Kennedy specified in the majority opinion that state police may not detain the individual for a prolonged amount of time for not carrying immigration documents, and that cases of racial profiling may proceed through the courts if such cases arise.
Majority opinion Justice Kennedy's majority opinion identified the question before the Court as "whether federal law preempts and renders invalid four separate provisions of the state law." The four provisions in question were: Section 3 of S.B. 1070, which made it a state crime to be unlawfully present in the United States and failing to register with the federal government; Section 5, which made it a misdemeanor state crime to seek work or to work without authorization to do so;