Arizona Immigration Law Case Study

The legal issue presented in Arizona v. United States is whether federal immigration laws preclude Arizona’s cooperative law enforcement efforts and implicitly preempt provisions of Arizona’s immigration law (S.B. 1070). My team and I believe that S.B. 1070 violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which makes federal law the “supreme law of the land.” As such, S.B. 1070 unconstitutionally intrudes on the federal government’s authority to regulate immigration law and should therefore be nullified.
Defining Preemption
Drawing from the premise of the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause and the Supreme Court’s interpretation, federal law can preempt state law in two ways. First, federal law can preempt state law when federal law
1070, Arizona argues that the provisions “authorize and direct Arizona law enforcement officers to cooperate and communicate with federal officials regarding the enforcement of federal immigration law and impose penalties under Arizona law for non-compliance with federal law.” Hence, these provisions only serve to mirror federal intentions while furthering state goals.
Section 2(B) Provides Guidance to Law Enforcement Officers
Pursuant to Section 2(B), Arizona law enforcement officers must make a reasonable attempt to determine a person’s immigration status, if, during the course of a lawful stop, detention, or arrest, an officer develops reasonable suspicion that the person is an alien and is not lawfully present in the United States.
The Arizona legislature asserts that Section 2(B) furthers Congress’ objectives and thus cannot be preempted. Arizona maintains that Section 2(B) is consistent with the cooperative law enforcement and communication federal law requires. Furthermore, Congress has mandated that federal immigration “respond to any inquiry by a state or locality seeking to verity or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any
citizens, regardless of the infraction, would be required to prove their immigration statuses. This provision places an unreasonable burden on federal resources which courts have determined to be unconstitutional in two instances. In the 2006 case Garrett v. City of Escondido, the District Court found that the burden on the federal agencies as a result of immigration status checks could “impede the functions of those federal agencies.” Similarly, in Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal Comm., it was ruled that a state law was preempted in part because it would create an incentive for individuals to “submit a deluge of information that the federal agency neither wants nor needs, resulting in additional burdens on the FDA's evaluation of an