« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Supreme Court upholds Arizona’s restrictions on hiring illegal immigrants

By: Dan Spencer (Diary)  |  May 26th, 2011 at 01:01 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

The Supreme Court has upheld Arizona’s Legal Arizona Workers Act. That law allows the state to shut down businesses that hire illegal immigrants:

A recently enacted Arizona statute—the Legal Arizona Workers Act—provides that the licenses of state employers that knowingly or intentionally employ unauthorized aliens may be, and in certain circumstances must be, suspended or revoked. The law also requires that all Arizona employers use a federal electronic verification system to confirm that the workers they employ are legally authorized workers. The question presented is whether federal immigration law preempts those provisions of Arizona law. Because we conclude that the State’s licensing provisions fall squarely within the federal statute’s savings clause and that the Arizona regulation does not otherwise conflict with federal law, we hold that the Arizona law is not preempted.

The high court’s majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts rejected Obama administration arguments that the Arizona law conflicted with federal immigration law:

  • Arizona’s licensing law falls well within the confines of the authority Congress chose to leave to the States and therefore is not expressly preempted.
  • The state law requires no more than that an employer, after hiring an employee, “verify the employment eligibility of the employee” through E-Verify.
  • Arizona’s requirement that employers use E-Verify in no way obstructs achieving the aims of the federal program. In fact, the Government has consistently expanded and encouraged the use of E-Verify, and Congress has directed that E-Verify be made available in all 50 States.

This is a huge win for those trying to do something about the never-ending flow of illegal aliens across our southern border. It is a huge loss for President Obama who will no doubt use it to continue to demonize the Supreme Court and rally his supporters for his reelection battle.

As Governor Pawlenty has pointed out, it is good to see that Justice Elena Kagen properly recused herself from participating in this ruling because of her previous position as President Obama’s Solicitor General. That is a precedent she must also follow when ObamaCare is presented before the court.

You can read the decision (pdf) here.

Tags: , , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine
    • Dan Spencer

      The “savings clause” is a provision in the federal Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (“IRCA”), which expressly exempts state or local “licensing and similar laws” from preemption.

      • calamityjune

        didn’t cha hehr ericccccckkkk!!! And so how’s yer Paul Ryan plan workin out for ya so far?
        ————–

        Another example of the need to ban.
        ? Erick

        • powertothepeople

          And I am sure your mom raised you better.

  • bk

    Kagan sat it out. Breyer wrote a dissent that Ginsburg joined. Sotomayor wrote a separate dissent that is a gem. It’s 18 pages long – here is the summary.

    In enacting the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), 100 Stat. 3359, Congress created a ?comprehensive scheme prohibiting the employment of illegal aliens in the United States.? Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, 535 U. S. 137, 147 (2002). The Court reads IRCA?s saving clause?which preserves from pre-emption state ?licensing and similar laws,? 8 U. S. C. ?1324a(h)(2)?to permit States to determine for themselves whether someone has employed an unauthorized alien so long as they do so in conjunction with licensing sanctions. This reading of the saving clause cannot be reconciled with the rest of IRCA?s comprehensive scheme. Having constructed a federal mechanism for determining whether someone has knowingly employed an unauthorized alien, and having withheld from the States the information necessary to make that determination, Congress could not plausibly have intended for the saving clause to operate in the way the majority reads it to do. When viewed in context, the saving clause can only be under stood to preserve States? authority to impose licensing sanctions after a final federal determination that a person has violated IRCA by knowingly employing an unauthorized alien. Because the Legal Arizona Workers Act instead creates a separate state mechanism for Arizona state courts to determine whether a person has employed an unauthorized alien, I would hold that it falls outside the saving clause and is pre-empted.

    I would also hold that federal law pre-empts the provision of the Arizona Act making mandatory the use of E-Verify, the federal electronic verification system. By requiring Arizona employers to use E-Verify, Arizona has effectively made a decision for Congress regarding use of a federal resource, in contravention of the significant policy objectives motivating Congress? decision to make participation in the E-Verify program voluntary.

    Yes, you read that right. Congress passed a related law and didn’t make this mandatory, so AZ can’t do so either according to her. It makes me wonder whether she thinks states have any rights at all. Did the 10th Amendment get repealed?

  • izoneguy

    I NEVER wondered about Sotomayor – I knew she would be terrible.
    I also knew Kagan would be terrible.
    And I knew without a doubt that Obama would be terrible.
    I hate to be right so often when it comes to this administration.

  • johnnyd

    when 3 justices think it is ok for illegals to take the job of a legal citizen. And it would have been 5/4 ifKagen did not recuse herself so there would have been 4 voting in favor of the illegals.

    God forbid if anything happens to one of the conservative Justices so Obama can appoint another anti-gun pro illegal liberal to the SCOTUS.

  • sundaycombo

    Glad to see this law was upheld as any serious attempt to deal with illegal immigration that ignores the employer in the equation is doomed. It’s illogical to go thru the dangerous process of entering here illegally if you didn’t know you had a job waiting on the other side.

    Now if we can only get serious about enforcement….

  • Change Jar Conservative

    We have to keep five conservatives up there.

    Channel money to the Prez/Senate campaigns.

  • renny

    the court ruled that WI’s legislature was not transparent enough in passing its revocation of some public unions’ collective bargaining and dues deductions.

    Let’s hope that becomes a YEAH at the WI Sup. Ct. or in the state leg., which could repass the law.

    I’ll be honest and say I cannot imagine that the allegation that judge bases her ruling on is that no one had enough notification of the vote because WI had been enthralled in protests and vanishing Dem. Senators over the issue for a month before the vote took place. And look at our own Cong. that voted for O’care on Christmas Eve, when the whole world was paying attention to something else. Was that lacking in transparency and notification?