Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case involving Arizona's S.B. 1070, a state law intended to increase the powers of local law enforcement who wished to enforce federal immigration laws. The Court ruled that sections 3, 5 (C), and 6 of S. B.
What was the case of Arizona v United States?
Jun 25, 2012 · ARIZONA et al. v. UNITED STATES certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 11–182. Argued April 25, 2012—Decided June 25, 2012 An Arizona statute known as S. B. 1070 was enacted in 2010 to address pressing issues related to the large number of unlawful aliens in the State.
What was the Supreme Court case in Arizona v 1070?
Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case involving Arizona's S.B. 1070, a state law intended to increase the powers of local law enforcement who wished to enforce federal immigration laws. The Court ruled that sections 3, 5 (C), and 6 of S. B.
Why did the US Sue Arizona in federal court?
Apr 25, 2012 · The United States asserts that under S.B. 1070, Arizona would only punish aliens who have not obtained authorization to stay in the United States, but maintains that the federal scheme does not view unlawful presence as a crime and affords relief in at its discretion.
Why did the Arizona Supreme Court pass a law to protect borders?
Dec 31, 2018 · The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit’s decision for the first three provisions as preempted by federal law, but reversed on the fourth as not in conflict with federal law. Arizona v. United States Case Brief Statement of the Facts: In 2010, the State of Arizona passed a bill, commonly referred to as S.B. 1070.
What was the outcome of decision in the Supreme Court case U.S. v Arizona?
5–3 decision The Supreme Court held that provision 1 conflicts with the federal alien registration requirements and enforcement provisions already in place.
What constitutional principle was used in Arizona v United States?
The Supremacy Clause provides a clear rule that federal law “shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Art. VI, cl. 2. Under this principle, Congress has the power to preempt state law.
What was Arizona trying to reduce in Arizona v United States?
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, challenging Arizona's Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act as usurping the federal government's authority to regulate immigration laws and enforcement.
What was the Supremacy Clause?
Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause. It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions.
What did the Supreme Court decide in Arizona v United States 2012 quizlet?
In a 5-3 decision issued on June 25, 2012, the court held that federal law preempted three provisions of Arizona's law: The provision making it a state crime to reside in the country without legal permission. The provision making it a state crime to work in the country without legal permission.
What four provisions of the Arizona immigration law did the Supreme Court examine in this case quizlet?
The court enjoined provisions that (1) created a state-law crime for being unlawfully present in the United States, (2) created a state-law crime for working or seeking work while not authorized to do so, (3) required state and local officers to verify the citizenship or alien status of anyone who was lawfully arrested ...
Is SB 1070 still in effect?
SB 1070 is Arizona's controversial anti-immigrant law The Supreme Court has upheld SB 1070's notorious "show me yours papers" provision, deciding that it is not preempted by federal law. This provision has been blocked by lower courts in Arizona and other copycat states until now.
Why is the Arizona Constitution longer than the U.S. Constitution?
State constitutions, and especially state bills of rights are the principal ways in which communities limit state government and protect citizens' individual rights, carefully specifying what states can and cannot do. This is why state constitutions are much longer than the U.S. federal constitution.
How are McCulloch v Maryland and Arizona v United States similar?
This is relevant to both McCulloch vs. Maryland and Arizona vs. United states as they both deal with conflict between state law and national law. In both cases, the supremacy clause was called upon to justify the central gocernments choice to overpower state policy.
Is a Supreme Court decision a law?
Any decisions that the U.S. Supreme Court makes is, in most cases, important to the entire nation. The motto of our Supreme Court is "Equal Justice Under Law." Because the words in the Constitution are so difficult for most people to understand, it has to be examined and studied very carefully.
How did the Supremacy Clause limit state power?
Under the doctrine of preemption, which is based on the Supremacy Clause, federal law preempts state law, even when the laws conflict. Thus, a federal court may require a state to stop certain behavior it believes interferes with, or is in conflict with, federal law.Jun 2, 2017
How does the 10th Amendment conflict with the Supremacy Clause?
The Constitution's supremacy clause ensures that the Constitution is the highest, or supreme, law. The Tenth Amendment gives some power back to the states, though only those powers that were not already granted to the federal government.Aug 30, 2021
What is a 2B in Arizona?
It has been suggested that §2 (B) will cause some persons who are lawfully stopped to be detained in violation of their constitutional rights while a prolonged investigation of their immigration status is undertaken. But nothing on the face of the law suggests that it will be enforced in a way that violates the Fourth Amendment or any other provision of the Constitution. The law instructs officers to make a “reasonable attempt” to investigate immigration status, and this language is best understood as incorporating the Fourth Amendment ’s standard of reasonableness. Indeed, the Arizona Legislature has directed that §2 (B) “shall be implemented in a manner consistent with federal laws . . . protecting the civil rights of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of United States citizens.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §11–1051 (L).
What is the principle of federalism?
Federalism, central to the constitutional design, adopts the principle that both the National and State Governments have elements of sovereignty the other is bound to respect. See Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U. S. 452, 457 (1991); U. S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U. S. 779, 838 (1995) ( Kennedy, J., concurring). From the existence of two sovereigns follows the possibility that laws can be in conflict or at cross-purposes. The Supremacy Clause provides a clear rule that federal law “shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Art. VI, cl. 2. Under this principle, Congress has the power to preempt state law. See Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, 530 U. S. 363, 372 (2000); Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 210–211 (1824). There is no doubt that Congress may withdraw specified powers from the States by enacting a statute containing an express preemption provision. See, e.g., Chamber of Commerce of United States of America v. Whiting, 563 U. S. ___, ___ (2011) (slip op., at 4).
Can Arizona survive preemption?
725, 730–731, 733 (1949); see also In re Loney, 134 U. S. 372, 375–376 (1890) (States may not impose their own punishment for perjury in federal courts). Arizona contends that §3 can survive preemption because the provision has the same aim as federal law and adopts its substantive standards.
Is Arizona a sovereign state?
As a sovereign, Arizona has the inherent power to exclude persons from its territory, subject only to those limitations expressed in the Constitution or constitution- ally imposed by Congress. That power to exclude has long been recognized as inherent in sovereignty. Emer de Vattel’s seminal 1758 treatise on the Law of Nations stated:
Is Arizona law preempted by 2 B?
Although §2 (B) of the Arizona law has occasioned much controversy, it adds nothing to the authority that Arizona law enforcement officers, like officers in all other States, already possess under federal law. For that reason, I agree with the Court that §2 (B) is not pre-empted.
Is Section 6 preempted?
I also disagree with the Court’s decision that §6 is pre-empted. This provision adds little to the authority that Arizona officers already possess, and whatever additional authority it confers is consistent with federal law. Section 6 amended an Arizona statute that authorizes warrantless arrests. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. §13–3883 (West 2010). Before §6 was added, that statute already permitted arrests without a warrant for felonies, misdemeanors committed in the arresting officer’s presence, petty offenses, and certain traffic-related criminal violations. See §§13–3883 (A) (1)– (4). Largely duplicating the authority already conferred by these prior subsections, §6 added a new subsection, §13–3883 (A) (5) (West Supp. 2011), that authorizes officers to make warrantless arrests on probable cause that the arrestee has committed a “public offense” for which the arrestee is removable from the United States. A “public offense” is defined as conduct that is punishable by imprisonment or a fine according to the law of the State where the conduct occurred and that would be punishable under Arizona law had the conduct occurred in Arizona. See §13–105 (27).
What court did the United States sue in Arizona?
The United States sued Arizona in federal district court, arguing the state law was preempted by federal law, and sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the state law from taking effect. The district court granted a preliminary injunction with respect to four provisions of the Arizona law and the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
What is Arizona's law on illegal aliens?
The Arizona law also amends current sanctions to deter employers from hiring illegal aliens (Sections 7, 8, and 9) and authorizes an officer to impound a vehicle used to transport unlawful aliens (Section 10). The United States challenged S.B. 1070 in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, ...
What is the Arizona law enforcement law?
In response to this concern, in April 2010, the Arizona State Legislature enacted the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act (“S.B. 1070”), which establishes or amends state immigration offenses and defines local police officers’ immigration law enforcement authority. Section 1 of S.B. 1070 states that the Arizona legislature’s goal in enacting this statute was to deter illegal immigrants from entering the country and from engaging in economic activity.
Does Arizona preempt federal law?
Petitioners, the State of Arizona and the Governor of Arizona, Janice K. Brewer, argue that federal law does not preempt its statute because Arizona’s statute merely creates a formal cooperative relationship between federal and state officers to implement federal laws. Respondent, the United States, asserts that implementation ...
Does Arizona punish aliens?
The United States asserts that under S.B. 1070, Arizona would only punish aliens who have not obtained authorization to stay in the United States, but maintains that the federal scheme does not view unlawful presence as a crime and affords relief in at its discretion.
Is Arizona a cooperative state?
Therefore, the United States maintains that this is not cooperative law enforcement as Arizona claims.
Is Arizona a constitutional state?
Arizona, on the other hand, argues that the statute is constitutional because the Supreme Court has previously found that as long as Congress has not declared that federal law preempts an entire area of law, states were free to prohibit conduct that is also prohibited under federal law.
When did Arizona appeal the Supreme Court decision?
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.
What is reasonable suspicion in Arizona?
The provisions at issue required Arizona officers to make a "reasonable attempt" to determine the immigration status of any person stopped, detained, or arrested on a legitimate basis if " reasonable suspicion" existed that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States.
What section of the 1070 law was preempted by federal law?
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.
What did Justice Scalia say about Arizona's immigration law?
Justice Scalia dissented and said that he would have upheld all four provisions as a valid exercise of concurrent state sovereignty over immigration. Justice Scalia argued that the statute was valid: "As a sovereign, Arizona has the inherent power to exclude persons from its territory, subject only to those limitations expressed in the Constitution or constitutionally imposed by Congress. That power to exclude has long been recognized as inherent in sovereignty." To support his position, Justice Scalia reviewed several cases from the early history of the Supreme Court's Immigration jurisprudence.
How many people were at the Arizona protests?
The city had become the national epicenter 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.
Why did Elena Kagan recuse herself from the Supreme Court?
Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the case, presumably because while she was the United States Solicitor General, she defended the federal government's position in the case under the Obama administration.
Which Latin American countries filed an amicus brief in support of the United States?
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. The brief supported Arizona.
Which court affirmed Arizona v. United States?
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit’s decision for the first three provisions as preempted by federal law, but reversed on the fourth as not in conflict with federal law. Arizona v. United States Case Brief.
Why is Arizona v. United States important?
United States is a significant case because it addressed squarely what many at the time believed were draconian laws directed at a vulnerable population – illegal immigrants.
What are the laws in Arizona?
In 2010, the State of Arizona passed a bill, commonly referred to as S.B. 1070. The bill was meant to address the increasing problem of illegal immigrants coming into the State. The bill had four prominent provisions, as follows: 1 It was a state crime to fail to comply with federal alien-registration requirements. 2 It was a state crime for an immigrant unlawfully in the country to seek or engage in work in Arizona. 3 State and local officers had the authority to arrest people without a warrant if they had “ probable cause to believe [an individual] has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.” 4 Officers conducting a stop, detention, or arrest should make efforts to verify the person’s immigration status with the federal government.
What law did Arizona enjoin?
The United States government filed suit in federal district court to enjoin Arizona from enforcing the entire S.B. 1070 law. The government claimed that the Arizona law was preempted by federal law.
When did Arizona pass the immigration law?
The State of Arizona passed a State immigration law in 2010, responding to the problem of illegal immigration in the State. The United States sued in federal court to enjoin enforcement of the law. The federal district court enjoined four provisions of the act that (i) made it a crime to be unlawfully present in the State;
Which clause gives Congress the power to preempt state law?
The Federal Government has “broad, undoubted power” over immigration based on the Constitution . The Supremacy Clause gives Congress the power to preempt state law expressly, or when it is clear federal law either was intended to “occupy the field” on a particular area or it conflicts with a state law.
Is Arizona a crime of illegal immigrants seeking work?
Arizona’s law to the contrary cannot stand . Warrantless arrests on suspicion of removability.
What is the purpose of the Arizona injunction?
The federal government (plaintiff) filed suit against the State of Arizona (defendant) in district court and sought a preliminary injunction to prohibit the implementation of four specific provisions of the statute. The district court granted the injunction which prohibited the state law from taking effect. Arizona appealed.
What is the concurrence section?
The concurrence/dissent section is for members only and includes a summary of the judge’s concurrence in part and dissent in part. To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.
What is the rule of law in Arizona?
Synopsis of Rule of Law. A state law that addresses immigration and alien registration is preemp ted where Congress has completely occupied the entire field. Facts. The Arizona Legislature passed S.B. 1070, a law designed to deter the unlawful entry and presence of illegal aliens in the state. The federal government (Plaintiff) ...
What does the majority of Arizona's decision mean?
The majority’s decision deprives Arizona, and any other State, from furthering its sovereign right and power to exclude people who have no right to be in the state. Moreover, the mere existence of federal action in the immigration field does not mean that a State is powerless to also act in that field.
What did the Court of Hines v. Davidowitz find?
In Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941), the Court found that Congress intended to completely occupy the immigration field with one all-embracing system. There, the Court held that the States lacked the authority to complement or to enforce additional regulations related to alien registration.
What is the purpose of the Arizona injunction?
The federal government (Plaintiff) filed suit against the State of Arizona (Defendant) in district court and sought a preliminary injunction to prohibit the implementation of four specific provisions of the statute. The district court granted the injunction which prohibited the state law from taking effect. Arizona appealed.
How does immigration affect Arizona?
Immigration policy can affect federal and international trade, tourism, diplomatic relations, and other vital interests of the Unit ed States. The federal government argues that four provisions of Arizona’s law are preempted by federal law covering the field of immigration. Section 3 of the statute penalizes an individual for failing ...
What is the exclusionary rule in the Fourth Amendment?
According to the Court, the exclusionary rule is a judicially created remedy designed to deter future fourth amendment violations by police officers. Because the rule is not a specific remedy to cure fourth amendment violations, it is only applicable when the deterrent purposes are most efficaciously served. This note argues that the illegally seized evidence should have been excluded even though the violation was caused by a court employee. First, the author asserts that the Court distorted the precedent of United States v. Leon (1984), the common law foundation for the good faith exception, by ignoring the centrality of the warrant process in that case. Second, this note asserts that, contrary to the majority's indication, the role of the exclusionary rule is much greater than mere deterrence. Finally, the note argues that even if the main goal of the exclusionary rule is deterrence, that goal would be better served by applying the rule to all State law enforcement personnel, not only to arresting officers. Therefore, the Court incorrectly held that the introduction of evidence against a criminal defendant, seized without a warrant or probable cause due to clerical error, was constitutionally permissible. 225 footnotes
When does the exclusionary rule not apply?
Evans, 115 S. Ct. 1185 (1995), in which the Court held that the exclusionary rule does not apply when an unlawful search is the result of a clerical error by a court employee.
Which amendment states that a search without a warrant is reasonable?
Rule of Law or Legal Principle Applied: For a search without a warrant to be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, the plain view doctrine can be invoked to search or seize evidence that the police have probable cause regarding the incriminating nature of the evidence.
What happened to the defendant in the shooting?
The defendant shot a gun through the floor of his apartment which injured the man living under him. Upon investigating the shooting and seizing three weapons, officers noticed expensive stereo equipment and moved one of the pieces so they could check the serial number. After contacting one of the officers at headquarters, the officers were able to confirm that the equipment was stolen. In response, the officers seized the stolen items and had a warrant issued to search the other pieces of equipment.
Is it constitutional to read a serial number in plain view?
The Court’s holding will prevent officers from lawfully retrieving evidence. It results in the creation of a rule that reading a serial number in plain view is constitutional while moving an object a mere couple of inches to see the serial number is unconstitutional.
Can police seize evidence without a warrant?
Under the doctrine, police may seize evidence without a warrant when they observe incriminating evidence in plain view. An officer is also permitted to search items by moving them for closer inspection, but, probable cause must first be established in order to invoke the plain view doctrine for search absent a warrant.
Overview
- In a 5-3 decision issued on June 25, 2012, the Supreme Court held that the first, second, and fourth provisions of SB 1070 were preempted by federal immigration law. The majority opinion was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Jus…
Supreme Court decision
Background
Role of Justice Kagan's recusal
Legacy
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 while she was the United States Solicitor General, she defended the federal government's position in the case under the Obama administration.
On June 25, 2012, the Court struck down three of the four provisions of SB 1070. The majority o…
See also
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 crime for an illegal immigrant to be in Arizona without carrying registration documents required by federal law; authorizes state and local law enforcement of federal immigration laws; and pe…
External links
In an article by SCOTUSblog, Stephen Wermiel mentions that Justice Kagan's recusal may have played a role in the 5-3 outcome of the case. Some commentators were surprised by the Chief Justice's vote and thought that the Chief may have voted with the majority to prevent the case from ending in a 4-4 deadlock.