Supreme Court Invalidates 3 of 4 SB 1070 Provisions

The Supreme Court today invalidated three of the four provisions of Arizona’s SB 1070 law before the court. In a 5-3 opinion in Arizona, et. al. v. United States, the Justices upheld, for now, Section 2(B) of the law which requires police, after a lawful stop, to check the immigration status of a suspected illegal alien. The Court found preempted sections that: make failure to comply with federal alien-registration requirements a state misdemeanor (Section 3); establish a misdemeanor for an illegal alien to seek or engage in work in the State {Section 5(C)}; and authorize state and local officers to arrest without a warrant a person an officer has probable cause to believe has committed a public offense that makes the person removable from the United States (Section 6).

The opinion determined that it was improper for a lower court to enjoin the status check provision before the court had an opportunity to see it in action...

The Court determined that the mandatory nature of the status checks does not interfere with the federal immigration scheme...

The opinion said that Section 3 of the Arizona law intrudes on the field of federal alien registration. Therefore, it is not permissible for a state to establish a misdemeanor for failure to carry federal alien-registration documents...

Section 5(C)’s criminal penalty for seeking employment interferes with the federal regulatory system, the Court found. The Justices interpreted the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) to mean that Congress decided it would be inappropriate to impose criminal penalties on unauthorized employees, so it follows that a state law to the contrary is an obstacle to the regulatory system Congress chose....

The opinion said that warrantless arrests of certain aliens suspected of being removable also creates an obstacle to federal law...

The opinion affirmed, in part, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on Sections 3, 5(C), and 6 and reversed, in part, the ruling on Section 2(B). That section is now remanded to the 9th Circuit for further consideration.