Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

Arizona v. United States (2012)

Read a random definition: safe conduct

A quick definition of Arizona v. United States (2012):

Arizona made a law called S.B. 1070 to stop people from entering the US illegally. The Supreme Court looked at four parts of the law. They said that three parts were not allowed because they went against the federal law. One part was allowed, but they needed to see how it would work before they could decide if it was okay. The Court said that the federal government has the power to make rules about immigration, and states can't make laws that go against those rules.

Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito disagreed with the majority opinion. They thought that the states should have more power to decide who can come into their state. Justice Kagan did not take part in the decision.

A more thorough explanation:

Arizona v. United States was a Supreme Court case that dealt with Arizona's Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act (S.B. 1070). The case held that certain provisions of the law were preempted by federal law, while one provision needed to be allowed to be practiced before deciding whether it should be stopped.

In 2010, Arizona passed S.B. 1070 to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States. The law had four provisions:

  • Section 3 made it a state misdemeanor to fail to comply with federal alien-registration requirements.
  • Section 5(C) made it a state misdemeanor for an unauthorized alien to look for or perform work in Arizona.
  • Section 6 authorized officers to execute warrantless arrests where “the officer has probable cause to believe . . . [a person] has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States”.
  • Section 2(B) required officers in certain scenarios, when conducting a stop, detention, or arrest, to make efforts to verify the person’s immigration status with the Federal Government.

The Supreme Court held that sections 3, 5(C), and 6 of S.B. 1070 were preempted by federal law, but section 2(B) must be allowed to be construed in practice before deciding whether the provision should be enjoined.

The Court found that the federal government has broad power to regulate immigration, and state laws that conflict with federal law are preempted. The Court held that sections 3, 5(C), and 6 conflicted with federal law and were therefore preempted. However, the Court held that section 2(B) was not necessarily preempted by federal law, and left it to the state courts to determine whether it conflicts with federal immigration law.

Section 3 of S.B. 1070 made it a state misdemeanor to fail to comply with federal alien-registration requirements. This provision was found to be preempted by federal law because it created a state misdemeanor for conduct already proscribed by federal law, thereby infringing upon the federal scheme that regulates the field of alien registration.

Section 5(C) of S.B. 1070 made it a state misdemeanor for an unauthorized alien to look for or perform work in Arizona. This provision was found to be preempted due to Congress’ enactment in 1986 of the Immigration Reform and Control Act, which specifically addressed the employment of illegal aliens.

Section 6 of S.B. 1070 authorized officers to execute warrantless arrests where “the officer has probable cause to believe . . . [a person] has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States”. This provision was found to be preempted as well, as an impediment to the removal system created by Congress.

Section 2(B) of S.B. 1070 required officers in certain scenarios, when conducting a stop, detention, or arrest, to make efforts to verify the person’s immigration status with the Federal Government. This provision was not necessarily preempted by federal law according to the Court, but needed to be allowed to be practiced before deciding whether it should be stopped.

Arizona | Arkansas

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
10:51
I used to get called hispanic a lot, same for my mom
10:52
o well we all the same race
10:52
one love
10:52
<3
10:53
its so obvious when someone is dragging their feet at work and it kills me, i hate it so much
jackfrost11770
10:54
mostly legal tan slav gang rise uo
jackfrost11770
10:54
we are a select few
10:54
fr fr, that kazakh blood is def doing it for you
@Mostlylegal: same but i’m brown so i just get browner
jackfrost11770
10:54
yeah haha also my dad grew up in odessa
lilypadfrog
10:54
cramping up at work. i don’t even care anymore
jackfrost11770
10:55
so anything south russia is like basically tropical climate lmfao
shaquilleoatmeal
10:55
5 mins till lilly gets mich
10:55
@jackfrost11770: no kidding, ive been, my mom is from lviv
jackfrost11770
10:55
ive never been always wanted to go, maybe sometime in the future :(
cumsock
10:56
who tf be searching be on linkedin
cumsock
10:57
me*
lilypadfrog
10:58
me
I do, you are cute in the profile pic
lilypadfrog
10:58
im looking up cumsock on linkedin
PuppyBot
10:59
guys manifest my period
PuppyBot
10:59
ive been getting cramps the past few days but no blood so i think its coming soon
lilypadfrog
10:59
I thought our cycles were synced u should having urs any day now
lilypadfrog
10:59
have
10:59
ok manifesting for u lol
PuppyBot
11:00
ok epic. thank you jae. i cannot risk pregnancy.
GreyCeaselessMammoth
11:00
another wednesday and no mich
lilypadfrog
11:00
same
lilypadfrog
11:00
i don’t even care anymore
JumpySubsequentDolphin
11:00
maybe it’s taking a minute
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.