Fair warning. The following may give you more legal analysis than you care to read about. To begin here’s a copy of the complaint filed by the Justice Department:
The main argument the Department of Justice is making is a Federal Supremacy Clause claim under Article VI of the Constitution. Specifically, the DOJ claims that Arizona has usurped powers granted to the Federal Government and current federal law on immigration. This is what constitutional lawyers call the doctrine of preemption, i.e., that whenever a Federal law (including the Constitution itself) grants the Federal Government authority over a particular matter states can not legislate regarding that issue, even if, as Arizona claims the Federal Government has not passed legislation regarding that matter or is failing to enforce current federal law.
Preemption arguments are not always easy issues for federal courts to decide. It usually comes down to the question of whether the federal law at issue and/or the authority granted to the Government by the Constitution preempts the entire field (i.e., only allows the Federal Government to act), or whether there are matters within that area of law upon which states may legitimately exert their authority.
The case will ultimately turn on how five justices sitting on the Roberts Supreme Court come down on the claim by the DOJ that Arizona’s Immigration Law SB 1070 is preempted by Federal authority granted to Congress under various parts of Article I, section 8, and the President’s own authority to enforce current Federal Law on immigration and his own authority matters of foreign policy.
Let me state from the outset that there is no clear cut definitive language that states unequivocally the Federal Government can explicitly prohibit the states from passing laws such as SB1070. Thus, we will be discussing a matter of constitutional interpretation.
Let me cite the relevant language from the complaint. I’ll bold the specific sections of the Constitution and Federal law that the DOJ is arguing prevent Arizona from passing and enforcing SB 1070:
Federal Authority and Law Governing Immigration and Status of Aliens
14.The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution mandates that “[t]his Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land . . . any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” U.S. Const., art. VI, cl. 2.
15.The Constitution affords the federal government the power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” U.S. Const., art. I § 8, cl. 4, and to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,” U.S. Const., art. I § 8, cl. 3. Further, the federal government has broad authority to establish the terms and conditions for entry and continued presence in the United States, and to regulate the status of aliens within the boundaries of the United States.
16.The Constitution affords the President of the United States the authority to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” U.S. Const., art. II § 3. Further, the President has broad authority over foreign affairs. Immigration law, policy, and enforcement priorities are affected by and have impacts on U.S. foreign policy, and are themselves the subject of diplomatic arrangements.
17.
Congress has exercised its authority to make laws governing immigration and the status of aliens within the United States by enacting the various provisions of the INA and other laws regulating immigration. Through the INA, Congress set forth the framework by which the federal government determines which aliens may be eligible to enter and reside in the United States, which aliens may be removed from the United States, the consequences for unlawful presence, the penalties on persons who violate the procedures established for entry, conditions of residence, and employment of aliens, as well as the process by which certain aliens may ultimately become naturalized citizens of the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1101, et seq. The INA also vests the executive branch with considerable discretion in enforcing the provisions of the federal immigration laws, generally allowing federal agencies to ultimately decide whether particular immigration remedies are appropriate in individual cases.
5
