Arizona v. United States
Holding
The lower courts erred in holding that Section 2(B) of Senate Bill 1070 - which requires police to check the immigration status of persons whom they detain before releasing them and which allows police to stop and detain anyone suspected of being an undocumented immigrant " should not go into effect while its lawfulness is being litigated because it is not sufficiently clear that the provision is preempted. Section 3 " which makes it a state crime for someone to be in the United States without proper authorization " is preempted because Congress left no room for states to regulate in that field, or even to enhance federal prohibitions. Section 5(C) -which makes it a state crime for undocumented immigrants to apply for a job or work in Arizona " is preempted as imposing an obstacle to the federal regulatory system. Section 6 " which authorizes state law enforcement officials to arrest without a warrant any individual otherwise lawfully in the country, if they have probable cause to believe that the individual has committed a deportable offense " is preempted because whether and when to arrest someone for being unlawfully in the country is a question solely for the federal government.
Judgment
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded., 5-3, in an opinion by Anthony McLeod Kennedy on Jun 25, 2012. Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito each filed opinions concurring in part and dissenting in part. (Kagan, J., recused)
Merits Briefs for the Petitioner
Amicus Briefs in Support of the Petitioner
- Brief of State Senator Russell Pearce
- Brief of State Legislators for Legal Immigration and Individual State Legislators”
- Brief of the American Unity Legal Defense Fund
- Brief for Secure States Initiative”
- Brief for the Mountain States Legal Foundation”
- Brief for the Liberty Legal Foundation
- Brief for Lawrence J. Joyce”
- Brief for Freedom Watch
- Brief for the Eagle Forum Education and Legal Defense Fund
- Brief for Minuteman Civil Defense Corps.
- Brief for the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence et al.
- Brief for the Arizona” Legislature”
- Brief for U.S. Border Control et al.
- Brief for U.S. Reps. Lamar Smith et al.
- Brief for Thomas More Law Center and Center for Security Policy”
- Brief for Joseph M. Arpaio, Maricopa County Sheriff”
- Brief for Cochise County Sheriff Larry A. Dever
- Brief for Landmark Legal Foundation”
- Brief for Members of Congress and the Committee to Protect America”s Border
- Brief for Michigan et al.
Amicus briefs in support of neither party
Merits Briefs in Support of the Respondent
Amicus Briefs in Support of the Respondent
- Brief for the American Bar Association”
- Brief for the American Civil Liberties Union et al.
- Brief for the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations”
- Brief for Arizona Employers for Immigration Reform et al.
- Brief for the Association of the Bar of New York City
- Brief for County of Santa Clara, California et al.
- Brief for the Constitutional Accountability Center
- Brief for Former Arizona Attorneys General”
- Brief for Former Commissioners of the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service
- Brief for the Greater Houston Partnership
- Brief for Madeleine K. Albright et al.
- Brief for Members of Congress”
- Brief for the”National Council of La Raza et al.
- Brief for the National Immigrant Justice Center
- Brief for” New York et al.
- Brief for State and Local Law Enforcement Officials”
- Brief for the United States Conference Of Catholic Bishops et al.
- Brief for the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights et al.
- Brief for the Rutherford Institute
- Brief for Service Employees International Union et al.
- Brief for the United Mexican States
Recommended Citation: Arizona v. United States, SCOTUSblog, https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/arizona-v-united-states/