“While it is nice to know the majority of the Supreme Court agrees that immigration law should be federal, it is a bit disheartening to see the human and economic toll taken to arrive at this point” - Davis Brown
For your reference, here’s a look at how immigration lawyers are writing about the June 25, 2012, U.S. Supreme Court decision regarding Arizona’s controversial immigration law:
“The case is especially interesting because it is an appeal of a preliminary injunction. Arizona passed the law with several provisions. The Obama Administration sued before the law went into effect, saying that the court should prevent (enjoin) the law from being implemented because it was “pre-empted” by federal law. In other words, states cannot pass laws that regulate an area reserved for the federal government…” Read on»
Arizona’s Attempt To Crackdown On Immigration (Mostly) Rejected By Supreme Court (Fisher & Phillips):
“Although the Supreme Court recognized the impact of unlawful immigration on the State of Arizona, it held that permitting the state to impose its own penalties for federal offenses, such as failure to comply with federal alien-registration requirements creates a conflict with the framework adopted by Congress.
…But the Court upheld the section requiring police officers to make a determination of the immigration status of any person stopped, detained, or arrested before the state courts had an opportunity to interpret the law and without a showing that its enforcement would conflict with federal immigration law and its objectives.” Read on»
The U.S. Supreme Court Strikes Down Most of Arizona’s Immigration Law (Miller & Martin):
“The Court noted that there are several bases for concluding that a state law is constitutionally preempted by federal law. First, Congress may have explicitly stated so, as is the case regarding the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), which preempts all but state licensing programs with respect to employer illegal immigration sanctions. Second, in the absence of explicit federal statutory language, the Court can infer preemption in at least two other circumstances: state laws must yield where federal regulation is so pervasive that there is no room for state action; or where the federal interest is so dominant that parallel state action is presumed to be unnecessary. Third, state laws are preempted where they conflict with federal law directly or implicitly. Implicit conflicts arise when the state law is an obstacle to accomplishing the purpose and intent of Congress in the federal law…” Read on»
We’ll post additional commentary and analysis as it comes in.
Also see this Bloomberg Law interview, recorded at the time of SB 1070 arguments before the high court:
[Link: Supreme Court Decision Could Spur New Immigration Laws - Bloomberg Law]
Read additional Immigration Law advisories on JD Supra»