Preemption

By Gabriel J. Chin and Marc L. Miller. Chin is a Professor of Law at the University of California, Davis, School of Law, and Miller is Vice Dean and Bilby Professor of Law at the University of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of Law. See “SB1070 in the Supreme Court,” their pre-oral argument analysis for ACSblog.

The argument in the SB1070 case went 20 minutes over its scheduled hour.  Most of the justices' questions addressed Section 2, which requires local police to investigate the immigration status of anyone stopped by the police who they suspected of being undocumented. 

Justices Kennedy and Scalia each asked the fundamental question of whether “a state must accept within its borders a person who is illegally present under federal law.” Paul Clement answered no, frankly claiming for the states the powers of deportation and border control.

Justice Scalia agreed. 

This question is at the heart of the case. All provisions of SB1070 are roundabout ways of forcing undocumented aliens to leave.  If Arizona has direct regulatory authority over illegal immigration, they need not operate indirectly; Arizona should just pass a law requiring the undocumented to leave, punishing them if they refuse.

Arizona did not do this because it doubts it has that power.  Such a claim would be at odds with the traditional approach, as represented, for example, by Chief Justice Burger, joined by Justices White, Rehnquist & O’Connor dissenting in Plyler v. Doe,who wrote: “A state has no power to prevent unlawful immigration, and no power to deport illegal aliens; those powers are reserved exclusively to Congress and the Executive.”

But if states do not have the power to regulate directly, then, as Mr. Clement recognized when answering this question, their claim to be able to do so indirectly is undermined.

In the modern electronic glow that seeks to cast major cases into six word headlines and sound bites, many commentators have observed that the justices supported Section 2. It was common ground among the justices and counsel that an officer acting on her own (rather than by statutory mandate) may question a suspect about immigration status, at least so long as it does not prolong a detention.

But looking at the exchanges between the Justices and the advocates, a more nuanced picture emerges.

By Pratheepan Gulasekaram, Assistant Professor, Santa Clara University School of Law.  Professor Gulasekaram teaches Constitutional Law and Immigration.  He is currently working on a book with Prof. Karthick Ramakrishnan (political science, U.C. Riverside) on the political and legal dynamics of immigration federalism.

Pro-immigrant advocates – and I count myself among them – will be anxiously listening to oral argument in U.S. v. Arizona, searching for clues as to whether the Court will uphold the preliminary injunction against Arizona’s now-notorious SB 1070.  Riding the momentum of district court and appellate court victories, and with the clear weight of precedent and academic opinion on its side, the federal government’s legal case appears sound.  For many progressives and immigrant advocates who have been wearily following the recent rise of state and local regulations the case appears to offer the promise of a final resolution to the question whether subfederal jurisdictions can engage in immigration enforcement.

Except, it likely will not provide this anticipated resolution.  While a victory for the federal government could establish powerful Supreme Court precedent against subfederal participation, there are at least four reasons why Arizona will not end the contentious national debate and policy battle over state and local involvement in immigration regulation.  First, because Justice Kagan has recused herself, there exists a distinct possibility that the case could result in a split 4-4 vote, producing no majority opinion.  Second, the district court never enjoined the provision of SB 1070 that announced the state’s intention to make “attrition through enforcement” the policy of the state.  Third, the political and legislative dynamics producing this recent proliferation of state and local laws suggest that restrictionist policy activists will not be deterred by the Court’s decision.  And, finally, regardless of the result in the case, subfederal jurisdictions can, and in some cases must, participate in enforcement programs condoned by federal law.  I briefly elaborate on each of these points below.