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.
All labels observed (5)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Arizona v. United States canonical | 10 |
| Arizona SB 1070 | 1 |
| Arizona Senate Bill 1070 | 1 |
| Arizona v. United States (post-remand proceedings) | 1 |
| United States v. Arizona | 1 |
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. ⓘ
surface form:
Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
|
| constitutionalProvisionInvolved |
Article VI
ⓘ
surface form:
Article VI of the United States Constitution
Supremacy Clause ⓘ |
| country |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 2012-06-25 ⓘ |
| docketNumber | 11-182 ⓘ |
| fullName | Arizona v. United States self-link ⓘ |
| 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.
ⓘ
surface form:
John G. Roberts, Jr.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg ⓘ Sonia Sotomayor ⓘ Stephen G. Breyer ⓘ |
| jurisdiction |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
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 |
U.S. state of Arizona
ⓘ
surface form:
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 of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| stateLawAtIssue |
Arizona v. United States
self-linksurface differs
ⓘ
surface form:
Arizona Senate Bill 1070
|
| volume | 567 ⓘ |
| vote | 5-3 ⓘ |
| yearDecided | 2012 ⓘ |
Referenced by (14)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
this entity surface form:
Arizona Senate Bill 1070
this entity surface form:
Arizona SB 1070
Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act
→
legalChallenge
→
Arizona v. United States
ⓘ
this entity surface form:
United States v. Arizona
Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act
→
partiallyInvalidatedBy
→
Arizona v. United States
ⓘ
this entity surface form:
Arizona v. United States (post-remand proceedings)
subject surface form:
Donald B. Verrilli Jr.