Arizona v. United States
E4583
Arizona v. United States is a 2012 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited state authority over immigration enforcement by affirming broad federal power in this area.
Aliases (4)
Statements (50)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
→
federal court case → |
| areaOfLaw |
administrative law
→
constitutional law → |
| arguedDate |
2012-04-25
→
|
| citation |
567 U.S. 387
→
|
| concurrenceInPartAndDissentInPartBy |
Antonin Scalia
→
Clarence Thomas → Samuel A. Alito, Jr. → |
| constitutionalProvisionInvolved |
Article VI of the United States Constitution
→
Supremacy Clause → |
| country |
United States
→
|
| court |
Supreme Court of the United States
→
|
| decisionDate |
2012-06-25
→
|
| docketNumber |
11-182
→
|
| fullName |
Arizona v. United States
→
|
| holding |
Federal law preempts several provisions of Arizona S.B. 1070 regulating immigration enforcement.
→
Section 2(B) of S.B. 1070, requiring officers to make a reasonable attempt to determine immigration status during lawful stops, is not facially preempted. → Section 3 of S.B. 1070, creating a state crime for failure to carry federal registration documents, is preempted. → Section 5(C) of S.B. 1070, criminalizing unauthorized aliens seeking or engaging in work, is preempted. → Section 6 of S.B. 1070, authorizing warrantless arrests based on possible removability, is preempted. → States may not enact or enforce immigration policies that conflict with federal immigration law. → |
| impact |
Limited state authority to create independent immigration enforcement schemes.
→
Reinforced federal primacy in immigration enforcement policy. → |
| joinedMajority |
John G. Roberts, Jr.
→
Ruth Bader Ginsburg → Sonia Sotomayor → Stephen G. Breyer → |
| jurisdiction |
United States
→
|
| justiceNotParticipating |
Elena Kagan
→
|
| keyPrinciple |
State laws are preempted when they conflict with the federal regulatory scheme on immigration.
→
The federal government has broad, dominant authority over immigration and alien status. → |
| legalSubject |
federal preemption
→
federalism → immigration law → |
| lowerCourtDisposition |
Affirmed in part and reversed in part
→
|
| majorityOpinionBy |
Anthony M. Kennedy
→
|
| originatingCourt |
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
→
|
| petitioner |
State of Arizona
→
|
| popularNameOfLawAtIssue |
Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act
→
|
| relatedCase |
De Canas v. Bica
→
Hines v. Davidowitz → |
| relatedConcept |
conflict preemption
→
field preemption → |
| reporter |
United States Reports
→
|
| respondent |
United States
→
|
| stateLawAtIssue |
Arizona Senate Bill 1070
→
|
| volume |
567
→
|
| vote |
5-3
→
|
| yearDecided |
2012
→
|
Referenced by (10)
| Subject (surface form when different) | Predicate |
|---|---|
|
Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act
("Arizona SB 1070")
→
|
alsoKnownAs |
|
Hines v. Davidowitz
→
|
appliedIn |
|
Arizona v. United States
→
|
fullName |
|
October Term 2012
("Arizona v. United States (post-remand proceedings)")
→
|
includesCase |
|
Supremacy Clause
→
|
interpretedInCase |
|
Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act
→
|
keyDecision |
|
Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act
("United States v. Arizona")
→
|
legalChallenge |
|
Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act
→
|
partiallyInvalidatedBy |
|
De Canas v. Bica
→
|
relatedCase |
|
Arizona v. United States
("Arizona Senate Bill 1070")
→
|
stateLawAtIssue |