+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 6 123456 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 59

Thread: SCOTUS hates Arizona

  1. #1
    President - RNT Fan Club Elvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forums Elvis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    26,304
    Rep Power
    1035148

    SCOTUS hates Arizona

    AZ v US

    Held:
    1. The Federal Government’s broad, undoubted power over immigration and alien status rests, in part, on its constitutional power to
    “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, 8, cl. 4, and on its inherent sovereign power to control and conduct foreign relations,
    see Toll v. Moreno, 458 U. S. 1, 10. Federal governance is extensive and complex. Among other things, federal law specifies categories of
    aliens who are ineligible to be admitted to the United States, 8 U. S. C. 1182; requires aliens to register with the Federal Government and to carry proof of status, 1304(e), 1306(a); imposes sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized workers, 1324a; and specifies which aliens may be removed and the procedures for doing so, see 1227. Removal is a civil matter, and one of its principal features is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials, who must decide whether to pursue removal at all. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), an agency within the Department of Homeland Security, is responsible for identifying, apprehending, and removing illegal aliens. It also operates the Law Enforcement Support Center,
    which provides immigration status information to federal, state, and local officials around the clock. Pp. 2–7.
    2. The Supremacy Clause gives Congress the power to preempt state law. A statute may contain an express preemption provision,
    see, e.g., Chamber of Commerce of United States of America v. Whiting, 563 U. S. ___, ___, but state law must also give way to federal
    law in at least two other circumstances. First, States are precluded from regulating conduct in a field that Congress has determined
    must be regulated by its exclusive governance. See Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Assn., 505 U. S. 88, 115. Intent can be inferred from a framework of regulation “so pervasive . . . that Congress left no room for the States to supplement it” or where a “federal
    interest is so dominant that the federal system will be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject.” Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U. S. 218, 230. Second, state laws are preempted when they conflict with federal law, including when they
    stand “as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full
    purposes and objectives of Congress.” Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S.
    52, 67. Pp. 7–8.
    3. Sections 3, 5(C), and 6 of S. B. 1070 are preempted by federal
    law. Pp. 8–19.
    (a) Section 3 intrudes on the field of alien registration, a field in
    which Congress has left no room for States to regulate. In Hines, a
    state alien-registration program was struck down on the ground that
    Congress intended its “complete” federal registration plan to be a
    “single integrated and all-embracing system.” 312 U. S., at 74. That
    scheme did not allow the States to “curtail or complement” federal
    law or “enforce additional or auxiliary regulations.” Id., at 66–67.
    The federal registration framework remains comprehensive. Because
    Congress has occupied the field, even complementary state regulation
    is impermissible. Pp. 8–11.
    (b) Section 5(C)’s criminal penalty stands as an obstacle to the
    federal regulatory system. The Immigration Reform and Control Act
    of 1986 (IRCA), a comprehensive framework for “combating the employment of illegal aliens,” Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v.
    NLRB, 535 U. S. 137, 147, makes it illegal for employers to knowingly hire, recruit, refer, or continue to employ unauthorized workers, 8
    U. S. C. 1324a(a)(1)(A), (a)(2), and requires employers to verify prospective employees’ employment authorization status,


    Cite as: 567 U. S. ____ (2012) 3
    Syllabus
    1324a(a)(1)(B), (b). It imposes criminal and civil penalties on employers, 1324a(e)(4), (f), but only civil penalties on aliens who seek,
    or engage in, unauthorized employment, e.g., 1255(c)(2), (c)(8).
    IRCA’s express preemption provision, though silent about whether
    additional penalties may be imposed against employees, “does not bar
    the ordinary working of conflict pre-emption principles” or impose a
    “special burden” making it more difficult to establish the preemption
    of laws falling outside the clause. Geier v. American Honda Motor
    Co., 529 U. S. 861, 869–872. The correct instruction to draw from the
    text, structure, and history of IRCA is that Congress decided it would
    be inappropriate to impose criminal penalties on unauthorized employees. It follows that a state law to the contrary is an obstacle to
    the regulatory system Congress chose. Pp. 12–15.
    (c) By authorizing state and local officers to make warrantless
    arrests of certain aliens suspected of being removable, 6 too creates
    an obstacle to federal law. As a general rule, it is not a crime for a
    removable alien to remain in the United States. The federal scheme
    instructs when it is appropriate to arrest an alien during the removal
    process. The Attorney General in some circumstances will issue a
    warrant for trained federal immigration officers to execute. If no federal warrant has been issued, these officers have more limited authority. They may arrest an alien for being “in the United States in
    violation of any [immigration] law or regulation,” for example, but only where the alien “is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained.” 1357(a)(2). Section 6 attempts to provide state officers with
    even greater arrest authority, which they could exercise with no instruction from the Federal Government. This is not the system Congress created. Federal law specifies limited circumstances in which
    state officers may perform an immigration officer’s functions. This
    includes instances where the Attorney General has granted that authority in a formal agreement with a state or local government. See,
    e.g., 1357(g)(1). Although federal law permits state officers to “cooperate with the Attorney General in the identification, apprehension,
    detention, or removal of aliens not lawfully present in the United
    States,” 1357(g)(10)(B), this does not encompass the unilateral decision to detain authorized by 6. Pp. 15–19.
    4. It was improper to enjoin 2(B) before the state courts had an
    opportunity to construe it and without some showing that 2(B)’s enforcement in fact conflicts with federal immigration law and its objectives. Pp. 19–24.
    (a) The state provision has three limitations: A detainee is presumed not to be an illegal alien if he or she provides a valid Arizona
    driver’s license or similar identification; officers may not consider
    race, color, or national origin “except to the extent permitted by the



    4 ARIZONA v. UNITED STATES
    Syllabus
    United States [and] Arizona Constitution[s]”; and 2(B) must be “implemented in a manner consistent with federal law regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and respecting the
    privileges and immunities of United States citizens.” P. 20.
    (b) This Court finds unpersuasive the argument that, even with
    those limits, 2(B) must be held preempted at this stage. Pp. 20–24.
    (1) The mandatory nature of the status checks does not interfere with the federal immigration scheme. Consultation between federal and state officials is an important feature of the immigration
    system. In fact, Congress has encouraged the sharing of information
    about possible immigration violations. See 1357(g)(10)(A), 1373(c).
    The federal scheme thus leaves room for a policy requiring state officials to contact ICE as a routine matter. Cf. Whiting, 563 U. S., at
    ___. Pp. 20–21.
    (2) It is not clear at this stage and on this record that 2(B), in
    practice, will require state officers to delay the release of detainees
    for no reason other than to verify their immigration status. This
    would raise constitutional concerns. And it would disrupt the federal
    framework to put state officers in the position of holding aliens in
    custody for possible unlawful presence without federal direction and
    supervision. But 2(B) could be read to avoid these concerns. If the
    law only requires state officers to conduct a status check during the
    course of an authorized, lawful detention or after a detainee has been
    released, the provision would likely survive preemption—at least absent some showing that it has other consequences that are adverse to
    federal law and its objectives. Without the benefit of a definitive interpretation from the state courts, it would be inappropriate to assume 2(B) will be construed in a way that conflicts with federal law.
    Cf. Fox v. Washington, 236 U. S. 273, 277. This opinion does not
    foreclose other preemption and constitutional challenges to the law
    as interpreted and applied after it goes into effect. Pp. 22–24.
    2006 - Year of the Elvis
    2007 - Year of the Oil Baron
    2008 - Year of the Fab Five
    2012 - Year of the Stud
    Best of:
    Quote Originally Posted by USC90
    Elvis will have to ... what am I thinking, E is going to do whatever he wants to do anyway,
    Quote Originally Posted by Dawg in Dallas
    Quote Originally Posted by Bubba

  2. #2
    President - RNT Fan Club Elvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forums Elvis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    26,304
    Rep Power
    1035148

    Re: SCOTUS hates Arizona

    dissent

    Quote Originally Posted by Justice Scalia
    The Court opinion’s looming specter of inutterable hor*
    ror—“[i]f 3 of the Arizona statute were valid, every State
    could give itself independent authority to prosecute fed-
    eral registration violations,” ante, at 10—seems to me not
    so horrible and even less looming. But there has come to
    pass, and is with us today, the specter that Arizona and
    the States that support it predicted: A Federal Govern*
    ment that does not want to enforce the immigration laws
    as written, and leaves the States’ borders unprotected
    against immigrants whom those laws would exclude. So
    the issue is a stark one. Are the sovereign States at the
    mercy of the Federal Executive’s refusal to enforce the
    Nation’s immigration laws?
    A good way of answering that question is to ask: Would
    the States conceivably have entered into the Union if the
    Constitution itself contained the Court’s holding? Today’s
    judgment surely fails that test. At the Constitutional
    Convention of 1787, the delegates contended with “the
    jealousy of the states with regard to their sovereignty.” 1
    Records of the Federal Convention 19 (M. Farrand ed.
    1911) (statement of Edmund Randolph). Through ratifica*
    tion of the fundamental charter that the Convention pro*
    duced, the States ceded much of their sovereignty to the
    Federal Government. But much of it remained jealously
    ——————
    7
    Remarks by the President on Immigration (June 15, 2012), online at
    http://www.whitehouse.gov.
    22 ARIZONA v. UNITED STATES
    Opinion of SCALIA, J.
    guarded—as reflected in the innumerable proposals that
    never left Independence Hall. Now, imagine a provision—
    perhaps inserted right after Art. I, 8, cl. 4, the Naturali*
    zation Clause—which included among the enumerated
    powers of Congress “To establish Limitations upon Immi*
    gration that will be exclusive and that will be enforced
    only to the extent the President deems appropriate.” The
    delegates to the Grand Convention would have rushed to
    the exits.
    As is often the case, discussion of the dry legalities that
    are the proper object of our attention suppresses the very
    human realities that gave rise to the suit. Arizona bears
    the brunt of the country’s illegal immigration problem. Its
    citizens feel themselves under siege by large numbers of
    illegal immigrants who invade their property, strain their
    social services, and even place their lives in jeopardy.
    Federal officials have been unable to remedy the problem,
    and indeed have recently shown that they are unwilling to
    do so. Thousands of Arizona’s estimated 400,000 illegal
    immigrants—including not just children but men and
    women under 30—are now assured immunity from en*
    forcement, and will be able to compete openly with Ari*
    zona citizens for employment.
    Arizona has moved to protect its sovereignty—not in
    contradiction of federal law, but in complete compliance
    with it. The laws under challenge here do not extend or
    revise federal immigration restrictions, but merely enforce
    those restrictions more effectively. If securing its territory
    in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we
    should cease referring to it as a sovereign State. I dissent.
    2006 - Year of the Elvis
    2007 - Year of the Oil Baron
    2008 - Year of the Fab Five
    2012 - Year of the Stud
    Best of:
    Quote Originally Posted by USC90
    Elvis will have to ... what am I thinking, E is going to do whatever he wants to do anyway,
    Quote Originally Posted by Dawg in Dallas
    Quote Originally Posted by Bubba

  3. #3
    Administrator Dawg in Dallas has a great deal of respect on the forumsDawg in Dallas has a great deal of respect on the forumsDawg in Dallas has a great deal of respect on the forumsDawg in Dallas has a great deal of respect on the forumsDawg in Dallas has a great deal of respect on the forumsDawg in Dallas has a great deal of respect on the forumsDawg in Dallas has a great deal of respect on the forumsDawg in Dallas has a great deal of respect on the forumsDawg in Dallas has a great deal of respect on the forumsDawg in Dallas has a great deal of respect on the forumsDawg in Dallas has a great deal of respect on the forums Dawg in Dallas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Age
    46
    Posts
    72,325
    Rep Power
    3568867

    Re: SCOTUS hates Arizona

    I guess this two bit lawyer's opinion wasn't so bad afterall, huh Fatboy?

  4. #4
    Banned Orgcrush has a great deal of respect on the forumsOrgcrush has a great deal of respect on the forumsOrgcrush has a great deal of respect on the forumsOrgcrush has a great deal of respect on the forumsOrgcrush has a great deal of respect on the forumsOrgcrush has a great deal of respect on the forumsOrgcrush has a great deal of respect on the forumsOrgcrush has a great deal of respect on the forumsOrgcrush has a great deal of respect on the forumsOrgcrush has a great deal of respect on the forumsOrgcrush has a great deal of respect on the forums
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Them thar hills
    Posts
    9,815
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: SCOTUS hates Arizona

    Quote Originally Posted by Dawg in Dallas View Post
    I guess this two bit lawyer's opinion wasn't so bad afterall, huh Fatboy?
    Well, now, Justices Roberts, Sotomaior, Kennedy, Ginsburg and Breyer are apparently "two-bit".

  5. #5
    Administrator Herchel has a great deal of respect on the forumsHerchel has a great deal of respect on the forumsHerchel has a great deal of respect on the forumsHerchel has a great deal of respect on the forumsHerchel has a great deal of respect on the forumsHerchel has a great deal of respect on the forumsHerchel has a great deal of respect on the forumsHerchel has a great deal of respect on the forumsHerchel has a great deal of respect on the forumsHerchel has a great deal of respect on the forumsHerchel has a great deal of respect on the forums Herchel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Bowdon, GA
    Age
    70
    Posts
    50,652
    Rep Power
    4717195

    Re: SCOTUS hates Arizona

    Quote Originally Posted by Orgcrush View Post
    Well, now, Justices Roberts, Sotomaior, Kennedy, Ginsburg and Breyer are apparently "two-bit".
    The last four definitely are.
    Deo Vindice

    "Put a federal agency in charge of the Sahara Desert and it will run out of sand".

    Peggy Noonan


    "One idiot is an idiot. Two idiots are two idiots. Ten thousand idiots are a political party."

    Franz Kafka

    I spent half my money on gambling, alcohol and wild women. The other half I wasted. W.C. Fields



  6. #6
    President - RNT Fan Club Elvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forumsElvis has a great deal of respect on the forums Elvis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    26,304
    Rep Power
    1035148

    Re: SCOTUS hates Arizona

    Quote Originally Posted by Herchel View Post
    The last four definitely are.
    In your opinion, what differentiates Roberts from the rest?
    2006 - Year of the Elvis
    2007 - Year of the Oil Baron
    2008 - Year of the Fab Five
    2012 - Year of the Stud
    Best of:
    Quote Originally Posted by USC90
    Elvis will have to ... what am I thinking, E is going to do whatever he wants to do anyway,
    Quote Originally Posted by Dawg in Dallas
    Quote Originally Posted by Bubba

  7. #7
    Banned Orgcrush has a great deal of respect on the forumsOrgcrush has a great deal of respect on the forumsOrgcrush has a great deal of respect on the forumsOrgcrush has a great deal of respect on the forumsOrgcrush has a great deal of respect on the forumsOrgcrush has a great deal of respect on the forumsOrgcrush has a great deal of respect on the forumsOrgcrush has a great deal of respect on the forumsOrgcrush has a great deal of respect on the forumsOrgcrush has a great deal of respect on the forumsOrgcrush has a great deal of respect on the forums
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Them thar hills
    Posts
    9,815
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: SCOTUS hates Arizona

    Quote Originally Posted by herchel View Post
    the last four definitely are.
    lmao!

  8. #8
    Captain Really Big Bama Fan has a great deal of respect on the forumsReally Big Bama Fan has a great deal of respect on the forumsReally Big Bama Fan has a great deal of respect on the forumsReally Big Bama Fan has a great deal of respect on the forumsReally Big Bama Fan has a great deal of respect on the forumsReally Big Bama Fan has a great deal of respect on the forumsReally Big Bama Fan has a great deal of respect on the forumsReally Big Bama Fan has a great deal of respect on the forumsReally Big Bama Fan has a great deal of respect on the forumsReally Big Bama Fan has a great deal of respect on the forumsReally Big Bama Fan has a great deal of respect on the forums Really Big Bama Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Sweet Home Alabama
    Posts
    31,208
    Rep Power
    3874887

    Re: SCOTUS hates Arizona

    Was Justice Kagan recused from this case?

  9. #9
    Administrator Dawg in Dallas has a great deal of respect on the forumsDawg in Dallas has a great deal of respect on the forumsDawg in Dallas has a great deal of respect on the forumsDawg in Dallas has a great deal of respect on the forumsDawg in Dallas has a great deal of respect on the forumsDawg in Dallas has a great deal of respect on the forumsDawg in Dallas has a great deal of respect on the forumsDawg in Dallas has a great deal of respect on the forumsDawg in Dallas has a great deal of respect on the forumsDawg in Dallas has a great deal of respect on the forumsDawg in Dallas has a great deal of respect on the forums Dawg in Dallas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Age
    46
    Posts
    72,325
    Rep Power
    3568867

    Re: SCOTUS hates Arizona

    Yes, she was...

  10. #10
    Master Gunnery Sergeant ACCFanInTraining has a great deal of respect on the forumsACCFanInTraining has a great deal of respect on the forumsACCFanInTraining has a great deal of respect on the forumsACCFanInTraining has a great deal of respect on the forumsACCFanInTraining has a great deal of respect on the forumsACCFanInTraining has a great deal of respect on the forumsACCFanInTraining has a great deal of respect on the forumsACCFanInTraining has a great deal of respect on the forumsACCFanInTraining has a great deal of respect on the forumsACCFanInTraining has a great deal of respect on the forumsACCFanInTraining has a great deal of respect on the forums ACCFanInTraining's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Age
    40
    Posts
    10,078
    Rep Power
    745955

    Re: SCOTUS hates Arizona

    color me not surprised on the ruling

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 6 123456 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Why Bama (and everyone else) hates UT
    By Vandy420 in forum SEC Football
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 08-27-2008, 08:40 PM
  2. SCOTUS cases this term
    By Elvis in forum SECFanatics Think Tank
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-01-2007, 05:27 PM
  3. Must read for SCOTUS watchers
    By Elvis in forum SECFanatics Think Tank
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-03-2007, 08:59 AM
  4. Labelling the SCOTUS
    By Elvis in forum SECFanatics Think Tank
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 01-26-2006, 11:54 AM
  5. Scotus: Who's Next?
    By FreddieMac in forum SECFanatics Think Tank
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 10-31-2005, 10:25 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts