The Supreme Court Steps Into the Illegal Immigration DebateIn April of 2010, Arizona made headlines by passing what at the time was considered the strictest immigration law in the country. The bill responded to what Arizona Governor Jan Brewer felt was a failure of the federal government to act.1The bill, known as S.B. 1070, includes four controversial provisions which are at the subject of the case before the Supreme Court. The provisions include: requiring law enforcement to verify the immigration status of anyone taken into custody; allowing law enforcement to stop and arrest persons suspected to be an illegal immigrant; making it a crime for persons to be present or hold a job in Arizona without valid immigration documentation; and giving law enforcement the ability to arrest persons without a warrant if law enforcement believes the person has committed a deportable offense.The federal government took umbrage, believing S.B. 1070 to conflict with established federal immigration law. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear the case, Arizona v. United States, and recently heard oral arguments.2 The federal government, being represented by Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, argued S.B. 1070 is preempted by federal immigration law. Immigration law has traditionally been the exclusive domain of the federal government, based on Constitutional sections regarding naturalization and preemption.3 Paul Clement, defending the law, argued the law merely cooperates within the boundaries of existing federal law. Further, the state law is necessary to combat what is a growing and unresolved issue.The eight Justices hearing the case, one short because of Justice Kagan’s recusal, seemed inclined to uphold at least portions of S.B 1070. Their questioning impliedly pushed the understanding that the federal government was not doing enough to stem the flow of illegal immigration, making the specific policies Arizona adopted necessary under the broader federal framework.The repercussions of a decision upholding S.B. 1070 could vary. On one hand, the decision could push more states to pass their own legislation tightening restrictions on immigration. However, the decision could also renew a push for comprehensive reform of federal immigration law to more clearly and definitively define the policies and procedures for dealing with illegal immigration.1 http://www.azgovernor.gov/dms/upload/PR_042312_SB1070Poll.pdf2 http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2011/2011_11_1823 U.S. Const. Art. I, Sec. 8, Para. 

In April of 2010, Arizona made headlines by passing what at the time was considered the strictest immigration law in the country. The bill responded to what Arizona Governor Jan Brewer felt was a failure of the federal government to act.1

The bill, known as S.B. 1070, includes four controversial provisions which are at the subject of the case before the Supreme Court. The provisions include: requiring law enforcement to verify the immigration status of anyone taken into custody; allowing law enforcement to stop and arrest persons suspected to be an illegal immigrant; making it a crime for persons to be present or hold a job in Arizona without valid immigration documentation; and giving law enforcement the ability to arrest persons without a warrant if law enforcement believes the person has committed a deportable offense.

The federal government took umbrage, believing S.B. 1070 to conflict with established federal immigration law. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear the case, Arizona v. United States, and recently heard oral arguments.2 The federal government, being represented by Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, argued S.B. 1070 is preempted by federal immigration law. Immigration law has traditionally been the exclusive domain of the federal government, based on Constitutional sections regarding naturalization and preemption.3 Paul Clement, defending the law, argued the law merely cooperates within the boundaries of existing federal law. Further, the state law is necessary to combat what is a growing and unresolved issue.

The eight Justices hearing the case, one short because of Justice Kagan’s recusal, seemed inclined to uphold at least portions of S.B 1070. Their questioning impliedly pushed the understanding that the federal government was not doing enough to stem the flow of illegal immigration, making the specific policies Arizona adopted necessary under the broader federal framework.

The repercussions of a decision upholding S.B. 1070 could vary. On one hand, the decision could push more states to pass their own legislation tightening restrictions on immigration. However, the decision could also renew a push for comprehensive reform of federal immigration law to more clearly and definitively define the policies and procedures for dealing with illegal immigration.

1 http://www.azgovernor.gov/dms/upload/PR_042312_SB1070Poll.pdf

2 http://www.oyez.org/cases/2010-2019/2011/2011_11_182

3 U.S. Const. Art. I, Sec. 8, Para. 4.