Arizona v. United States
The case of Arizona v. United States is a Supreme Court case dealing with the issue of the state of Arizona trying to enact laws against illegal aliens inside the state’s borders. These previsions implemented by the state of Arizona conflicted with the Federal Government, by infringing upon the right of the government to exclusively regulate immigration. This paper will discuss facts, and explain some issues having to do with immigration laws within the United States and its conflict with the state of Arizona. It will go over the actual opinion as well as opinions from the justices. It will conclude with the pros and cons of the decision of Arizona v. United States.
Arizona enacted a statute in 2010 to address the pressing issue of larger numbers of unlawful aliens in the state (Justia.com, 2012). The statute is called Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe neighborhood act, which was signed into law by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer (Cornell University Law School, 2010). The act allows law enforcement who has reasonable suspicion the right to make an individual prove they are a US citizen and if they are an unlawful citizen they will be charged with criminal offense (Cornell University Law School, 2010). The United States argues that legislation takes supremacy over state or local laws and sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the state law from taking effect, and caused The United States to sue Arizona (Cornell University Law School, 2012). The District Court issued a preliminary injunction preventing four of its provisions from taking effect (Justia.com, 2012). The four sections were placed on hold till the hearing was completed and the final opinion was established. The sections in question were “Section 3 makes failure to comply with federal alien-registration requirements a state misdemeanor; §5(C)makes it a misdemeanor for an unauthorized alien to seek or engage in work in the State; §6 authorizes state and local officers to arrest without a warrant a person “the officer has probable cause to believe . . . has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States”; and §2(B) requires officers conducting a stop, detention, or arrest to make efforts, in some circumstances, to verify the person’s immigration status with the Federal Government (supremecourt.gov, 2012).” Reasonable suspicion falls under the fourth amendment, which the fourth amendment is defined as: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized (Harr, Hess, & Orthmann, 2012).” Reasonable suspicion allows an officer to make a stop and infringe on a person’s liberty temporarily, but only be completed on the grounds that the officer has suspicion to suspect illegal activity (Harr, Hess, & Orthmann, 2012). The problem is that in order to complete an immigration issue the individual will not be stopped in a reasonable amount of time, and discrimination would be used in order to assume that one is an illegal alien. Giving law enforcement this type of discretion could cause conflict in Arizona as some may say they are being discriminated against due to race and color. Section three of Arizona’s statute Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe neighborhood act otherwise known as S.B. 1070 creates misdemeanor charges against immigrants that do not carry their registration documents (supremecourt.gov, 2012). Arizona wanted to mandate penalties from the state as well as by federal law (supremecourt.gov, 2012). The United States contended as Congress has does not allow states to regulate immigration laws (supremecourt.gov, 2012). Pennsylvania tried to in act a similar act The Alien Registration act of 1939, and was...
References: Cornell University Law School. (2010, August 19). Legal Information Institute. Retrieved September 3, 2012, from Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act of 2010: http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/support_our_law_enforcement_and_safe_neighborhoods_act_of_2010
Cornell University Law School. (2012, April 25). Legal Information Institute. Retrieved September 3, 2012, from Arizona v. United States: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/11-182
Harr, J., Hess, K. M., & Orthmann, C. H. (2012). Constitutional Law and the Criminal Justice System. Belmont, California, USA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.
Justia.com. (2012). US Supreme Court Center. Retrieved September 2012, from Arizona v. United States: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/567/11-182/
LLC, C. B. (2012). Case Briefs . Retrieved 2012, from Hines, Secretary of Labor ad Industry of Pennsylvania v. Davidowitz: http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/constitutional-law/constitutional-law-keyed-to-chemerinsky/limits-on-state-regulatory-and-tax-power/hines-secretary-of-labor-ad-industry-of-pennsylvania-v-davidowitz/
supremecourt.gov. (2012). pdf. Retrieved 2012, from Arizona et al v. United States: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-182b5e1.pdf
U.S Department of Homeland Security . (2012, May 29). ICE. Retrieved 2012, from Fact Sheet: Law Enforcement Support Center: http://www.ice.gov/news/library/factsheets/lesc.htm
U.S Supreme Court Media. (2011). OYEZ. Retrieved September 2012, from INS v. Lopez: http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1983/1983_83_491
U.S Supreme Court Media OYEZ. (2011). OYEZ. Retrieved September 2012, from Arizona v. United States.
United States Courts for the Ninth Circute. (2012, August 8). Retrieved 2012, from USA v. State of Arizona , no.16645: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view.php?pk_id=0000000470
Please join StudyMode to read the full document