Obama Administration Supports Lawsuit Against Arizona Employment Immgration Law

Monday, June 28th, 2010

Before the latest Arizona attempt to take federal immigration law into their own hands by requirng law enforcement to use “reasonable suspicion” to request documentation of an individual’s legal authorization to be in the United States, there were other attempts by Arizona to legislate in the area of immigration, namely the Legal Arizona Workers Act, an Arizona law prohibiting employers from knowingly or intentionally employing an unauthorized immigrant.   According to the United States, who welcomes the Chamberof Commerce’s challenge of the Ariona law, the law “disrupt[s] a careful balance that Congress struck nearly 25 years ago between two interests of the highest importance: ensuring that employers do not undermine enforcement of immigration laws by hiring unauthorized workers, while also ensuring that employers not discriminate against racial and ethnic minorities legally in the country.”

With the support of the United States Solicitor General, today, June 28, 2010, the Supreme Court has agreed that this case raises an important question about the state’s ability to legislate in the area considered to be in the exclusive domain of the federal government.  In,  Chamber of Commerce v. Candelaria,  the Chamber challenges the Legal Arizona Workers Act alleging that the Arizona statute is unlawful because it is preempted by federal immigration laws that regulate the employment of non-citizens.  Although the lower courts upheld the statute, finding that it was not preempted by federal law, the United States Solicitor General disagrees and the Supreme Cort has decided it needs to examine the question which will likely have a bearing on other state laws and local ordinances that attempt to legislate in this area.

Specifically, the Supreme Court granted the petition for writ of certiorari to address three questions:

  1. Whether an Arizona statute that imposes sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized aliens is invalid under a federal statute that expressly “preempt[s] any State or local law imposing civil or criminal sanctions (other than through licensing and similar laws) upon those who employ, or recruit or refer for a fee for employment, unauthorized aliens.” 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(h)(2).
  2. Whether the Arizona statute, which requires all employers to participate in a federal electronic employment verification system, is preempted by a federal law that specifically makes that system voluntary. 8 U.S.C. § 1324a note.
  3. Whether the Arizona statute is impliedly preempted because it undermines the “comprehensive scheme” that Congress created to regulate the employment of aliens. Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, 535 U.S. 137, 147 (2002).

Prior to granting the petition for certiorari, the Supreme Court had invited the Solicitor General to file a brief in the case expressing the views of the United States. In the brief for the United States as amicus curiae, the Solicitor General asked the court to grant the writ of certiorari to consider whether provisions of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1324(h)(2), expressly preempt the provisions of the Arizona state law. According to the United States, the Arizona law is expressly pre-empted by federal immigration law and the case presents an important legal question that warrants the Supreme Court’s consideration. “[The employer-sanctions provisions of the Arizona statute] disrupt[s] a careful balance that Congress struck nearly 25 years ago between two interests of the highest importance: ensuring that employers do not undermine enforcement of immigration laws by hiring unauthorized workers, while also ensuring that employers not discriminate against racial and ethnic minorities legally in the country.”

View all ISG Alerts