Abstract
In the United States, the legal challenges to a recent spate of state and local laws aimed at regulating migration have revolved primarily around questions of immigration federalism. The primary argument of litigants challenging state and local ordinances such as Arizona’s S.B. 1070 or Hazelton, Pennsylvania’s ordinance concerning the employment and housing of unauthorized migrants has been a federal preemption argument. Simply put, the argument is that state and local immigration regulations are preempted by the comprehensive federal scheme regulating immigration. Defenders of the laws have taken the position—again relying on the jurisprudence that has evolved in the context of immigration federalism—that these laws and ordinances are not preempted because they exist in the interstices of and do not conflict with federal immigration regulation. Additional constitutional questions such as equal protection arguments or Fourth Amendment arguments have been raised as well, but those questions are being litigated in the shadows of the preemption arguments. Thus, the body of law concerning immigration federalism has been the primary tool used by courts thus far to resolve increasingly common questions about sub-federal immigration regulation.
As a result of the spate of litigation over sub-federal immigration ordinances, the jurisprudence of immigration federalism in the United States is becoming more nuanced—with increasing space created for state and local participation in immigration regulation. Courts still generally take the position that the federal government has primacy in regulating immigration laws, but recent decisions have shown an increasing tolerance for state or local regulations that do not contravene the federal regulatory scheme. This Chapter assesses the recent evolution of the jurisprudence of immigration federalism in the United States. Part I discusses several recent, high-profile cases involving challenges to state or local immigration regulations and explains how the courts have addressed the preemption arguments in each of these cases. Part II discusses the ways in which these recent court decisions are transforming preemption doctrine, allowing greater latitude for sub-federal regulation, but leaving unclear the permissible parameters of such regulation. Part III concludes with an analysis of the ways in which these decisions have interacted with political developments to substantially transform the landscape of immigration federalism in the U.S.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Official Transcript, Oral Argument, United States v. Arizona, No. 11–182, at 33–34 (argued April 25, 2012) (available at http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/11-182.pdf).
- 2.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Mexican American Legal Defense Fund (MALDEF), National Immigration Law Center (NILC), the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the ACLU of Arizona, the National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON) and the Asian Pacific American Legal Center (APALC) challenged the law on First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment grounds shortly after its enactment. Friendly House, et al. v. Whiting, First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief filed October 31, 2011, 2011 WL 5367286 (D.Ariz.) (Trial Pleading) United States District Court, D. Arizona.
- 3.
See Valle del Sol et al. v. Whiting, No. CV10–1061-PHX-SRB (D. Ariz. Sept. 5, 2012) (denying preliminary injunction of S.B. 1070 Section 2(B) sought on Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment grounds).
- 4.
The United States had initially contended that S.B. 1070 was preempted in its entirety, but Arizona District Court Judge Bolton rejected this argument, finding that only Sections 2(B), 3, 5(C) and 6 were preempted. United States v. Arizona, 703 F. Supp. 2d 980, 1008 (D. Ariz. 2010).
- 5.
The Arizona law does not allow for probation as a penalty for failure to carry registration papers; the federal law does ( Arizona v. United States, 2012, p. 2503).
- 6.
See Hammon-Beason Alabama Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act, H.R. 56 (HB 56), 2011 Ala. Acts 535 (Ala. 2011), amended by H.R. 258 (HB 258), (Ala. 2012); Georgia Illegal Immigration Reform and Enforcement Act of 2011, H.R. 87 (HB 87) (Ga. 2011); S. 590 (SB 590) (Ind. 2011); South Carolina Illegal Immigration and Reform Act, S. 20 (Act No. 69), (S.C. 2011); Illegal Immigration Enforcement Act, HB 497) (Utah 2011) (including Utah’s Compact, H116, H466, H469 and H497.).
- 7.
See, e.g., Hazleton, Pa., Ordinance 2006–18 (2006, Sept 8), invalidated by Lozano, 496 F. Supp. 2d 477 (M.D. Penn. 2007),), vacated sub nom., City of Hazleton, Pa. v. Lozano, 131 S. Ct. 2958 (2011) (remanding in light of Chamber of Commerce of United States of America v. Whiting, 563 U.S. __, 131 S. Ct. 1968 (2011).).
- 8.
See, e.g., Cent. Am. Refugee Ctr. v. City of Glen Cove, 753 F. Supp. 437, 439–42 (E.D.N.Y. 1990). (upholding against equal protection and First Amendment challenges local anti-solicitation ordinances that prevented day laborers from congregating); Lopez v. Town of Cave Creek, Ariz., 559 F. Supp. 2d 1030, 1035–36 (D. Ariz. 2008) (granting a preliminary injunction against a Cave Creek ordinance aimed at day-laborer solicitation).
- 9.
Of course, critics contend that Secure Communities does not eliminate discrimination in policing. See, e.g., Aarti Kohli et al. (2011), Secure Communities by the Numbers, Chief Justice Warren Inst. On Law & Soc. Policy. I share these concerns. The point here is simply that the federal government’s explicitly state goal in rolling out the program is to eliminate sub-federal discretion (and discrimination) in immigration policing.
References
Aarti Kohli et al., Chief Justice Warren Inst. on Law & Soc. Policy, Secure Communities by the Numbers 2 (2011)
Abrams, K. (2009). The hidden dimension of nineteenth-century immigration law. Vanderbilt Law Review, 62, 1353.
Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(c) (2012). Pub. L. No. 104–132, § 439(a), 110 Stat. 1214, 1276.
Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492 (2012).
Bosniak, L. (2006). The citizen and the alien: Dilemmas of contemporary membership (pp. 65–66). New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Carbado, D., & Harris, C. (2011). Undocumented criminal procedure. UCLA Law Review, 58, 1543.
Carter, T. (2010, Apr 1). The maricopa courthouse war. ABA Journal. http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/the_maricopa_courthouse_war.
Cent. Am. Refugee Ctr. v. City of Glen Cove, 753 F. Supp. 437 (E.D.N.Y. 1990).
Chacón, J. M. (2007). Unsecured borders. University of Connecticut Law Review, 39, 1827–1861.
Chacón, J. M. (2010). A diversion of attention? Immigration courts and the adjudication of fourth and fifth amendment rights. Duke Law Journal, 59, 1564–1581.
Chacón, J. M. (2010a). Border exceptionalism in the era of moving borders. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 38, 129.
Chacón, J. M. (2010b). Tensions and tradeoffs: Protecting trafficking victims in an era of immigration enforcement. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 158, 1609–1850.
Chacón, J. M. (2012a). Arizona’s S.B. 1070: Who won, why, and what now? LexisNexis Emerging Issues Analysis, Emerging Issues 6515.
Chacón, J. M. (2012b). Overcriminalizing migration. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 102, 613-652.
Chae Chan Ping v. United States, 130 U. S. 581 (1889).
Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, 563 U.S. (2011).
Chemerinsky, E. (2011). Constitutional law: Principles and policies (4th ed.). (Aspen Student Treatise Series 2011).; Wolters Kluwer.
Chicanos Por La Causa v. Napolitano, 558 F.3d 856 (9th Cir. 2010).
Chin, G. L., & Miller, M. (2011). The unconstitutionality of state regulation of immigration through criminal law. Duke Law Journal, 61, 251.
Chin, G., Hessick, C. B., Massaro, T., & Miller, M. L. (2010). A legal labyrinth: Issues raised by Arizona Senate Bill 1070. Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, 25, 47.
Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S. 275, 280 (1875).
Cornelius, W. (2010). Preface. In M. Varsanyi (Ed.), Taking local control: Immigration plicy activism in U.S. cities and states. Stanford University Press.
Cristina M. Rodriguez, The Significance of the Local in Immigration Regulation, 106 Mich. L. Rev. 567, 575-76 (2008).DeCanas, v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351 (1976).
Eagly, I. V. (2011). Local immigration prosecution: A study of Arizona before SB 1070. U.C.L.A. Law Review, 58, 1749–1767.
Estrada, v. Rhode Island, 594 F. 3d 56 (1st Cir. 2010).
Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698, 713 (1893).
Friendly House, et al. v. Whiting, First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief filed October 31, 2011, 2011 WL 5367286 (D. Ariz. 2011).
Gade v. National Solid Waste Management Assn., 505 U.S. 88, 108 (1992).
Gilbert, L. (2012a). Immigrant laws, obstacle preemption and the lost legacy of McCulloch. Berkeley Journal of Labor and Employment Law, 33, 153–183.
Gilbert, L. (2012b, June 26). Patchwork immigration laws and federal enforcement priorities. Social Science Research Network. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2093486.
Gonzalez v. City of Peoria, 722 F.2d 468 (9th Cir. 1983), overruled in part on other grounds by Hodgers-Durgin v. De La Vina, 199 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 1999).
Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365 (1971).
Guttentag, L. (2012, June 18). Discrimination, preemption, and Arizona’s immigration law: A broader view. Stanford Law Review Online 65, 1. http://www.stanfordlawreview.org/online/discrimination-preemption.
Hazleton, Pa., Ordinance 2006–18 (2006, Sept 8), invalidated by Lozano, 496 F. Supp. 2d 477 (M.D. Penn. 2007), vacated sub nom., City of Hazleton, Pa. v. Lozano, 131 S. Ct. 2958 (2011) (remanding in light of Chamber of Commerce of United States of America v. Whiting, 563 U.S., 131 S. Ct. 1968 (2011)).
Henderson v. New York, 92 U. S. 259 (1875).
Hines, v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 66–67 (1941).
Hing, B. O. (2012). Immigration detention and the secure communities program. Angel Island Immigration Station Foundation. http://www.aiisf.org/about/articles/749-immigration-detention-and-the-secure-communities-program. Accessed 3 Aug 2012.
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, 8 U.S.C. § 1103(a), Pub. L. No. 104–208, § 303(a), 110 Stat. 3009–546, 3009–646.
Immigration and Nationality Act § 287(g), 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g) (2012).
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, codified at 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324a & 1324b.
Johnson, K. R. (2004). Racial profiling after september 11: The department of justice’s 2003 guidelines. Loyola Law Review, 50, 67.
Johnson, K. R. (2010). How racial profiling in America became the law of the land: United States v. Brignoni-Ponce and Whren v. United States and the need for truly rebellious lawyering. Georgetown Law Review, 98, 1005.
Kalhan, A. (2008). The fourth amendment and privacy implications of interior immigration enforcement. U.C. Davis Law Review, 41, 3.
League of United Latin American Citizens v. Wilson, 908 F. Supp. 755 (C.D. Cal. 1995).
Legal Arizona Worker’s Act of 2007, Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 23–212.
Legomsky, S. H., & Rodriguez, C. M. (2009). Immigration and refugee law and policy (p. 1154). Foundation Press.
Lopez v. Town of Cave Creek, Ariz., 559 F. Supp. 2d 1030, 1035–36 (D. Ariz. 2008).
Maddow, R. (2010, Apr 14). The rachel maddow show. MSNBC. Transcript. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36552869/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/t/rachel-maddow-show/#.UBgiDjFSRis.
Margaret, H. (2011, Nov 15). ‘Show me your papers’ laws and American cultural values. Jurist—Forum. http://jurist.org/forum/2011/11/margaret-hu-immigration-papers.php.
Martin, D. (2012). Reading Arizona. Virginia Law Review In Brief, 98, 41.
McDonnell, P. J. (1999, July 29). Davis won’t appeal prop. 187 ruling, ending court battles. Los Angeles Times, A1.
Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470, 485 (1996), quoting Hillsborough County v. Automated Med. Labs., Inc., 471 U.S. 707, 715 (1985).
Memorandum from Seth Waxman, Assoc. Deputy Att’y, to the U.S. Att’y for the S. Dist. of Cal. (Feb. 5, 1996), available at http:// www.justice.gov/olc/immstopo1a.htm;
Michael Wishnie, M. (2004). State and local police enforcement of immigration laws. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law, 6, 1084.
Michael J. Wishnie, State and Local Police Enforcement of Immigration Laws, 6 U. Pa. J. Const. L. 1084, 1085 (2004).
Motomura, H. (2010). The rights of others: Legal claims and immigration outside the law. Duke Law Review, 59, 1723.
Motomura, H. (2011). The discretion that matters: Federal immigration enforcement, state and local arrests, and the civil-criminal line. UCLA Law Review, 58, 1819.
Muehler, v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93 (2005).
Narro, V. (2005–2006). Impacting next wave organizing: creative campaign strategies of the los angeles worker centers. New York Law School Law Review, 50, 465–495.
National Immigration Forum. (2012). Secure communities. http://www.immigrationforum.org/images/uploads/Secure_Communities.pdf.
National Immigration Law Center. (2012, June 25). The supreme court decision on SB 1070, What’s at stake. http://www.nilc.org/USvAZimplications.html.
Neuman, G. (1993). The lost century of immigration law 1776–1875. Columbia Law Review, 93, 1833.
Obama, B. (2012, June 25). Statement on the supreme court’s ruling on Arizona v. the United States. Daily Compilation of Presidential Documents, No. DCPD201200509. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/DCPD-201200509/pdf/DCPD-201200509.pdf.
Passel, J., & Cohn, D. (2011, Feb 1). Unauthorized immigrant population: National and state trends, 2010. Pew research center: Pew hispanic center. http://www.pewhispanic.org/2011/02/01/unauthorized-immigrant-population-brnational-and-state-trends-2010/.
Pham, H. (2004). The inherent flaws in the inherent authority position: Why inviting local enforcement of immigration laws violates the constitution. Florida State Law Review, 31, 965–978.
Plyer, v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982).
Preston, J. (2009, Nov 12). U.S. Identifies 111,000 immigrants with criminal records. New York Times, A13. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/13/us/13ice.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=U.S.%20Identifies%20111,000%20Immigrants%20With%20Criminal%20Records&st=cse.
Randal, A. C. (2010, April 24). U.S.’s toughest immigration law is signed in Arizona. N.Y. Times, A1. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/us/politics/24immig.html?ref=us.
Randy Capps et al., Migration Pol’y Inst., Delegation and Divergence: A Study of 287(g) State and Local Immigration Enforcement 9 (Jan. 2011), available at http://www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/287g-divergence.pdf;
Rodríguez, C. M. (2008). The significance of the local in immigration regulation. Michigan Law Review, 106, 567–642.
Romero, A. D., & Wang, C. (2012, June 25). ACLU officials respond to supreme court ruling on Arizona Anti-Immigrant Law, decision condemned as being on the “wrong side of history.” American Civil Liberties Union. http://www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights/aclu-officials-respond-supreme-court-ruling-arizona-anti-immigrant-law.
Rosenbaum, C. L. (2010). Introduction to 287(g) agreements, secure communities, and immigration detainers. Lexis Nexis Emerging Issues, 5400.
Rusk, K. (2010, September 28). County wants feds to keep hands off fingerprints. ABCLocal. http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/south_bay&id=7694228.
Seghetti, L. M. (2006), Enforcing Immigration Law, Congressional Research Service, RL 32270. http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=key_workplace
Statement by Secretary Napolitano on DOJ’s Findings of Discriminatory Policing in Maricopa County, Dep’t of Homeland Sec. (Dec. 15, 2011), available at http://www.dhs.gov/news/2011/12/15/secretary-napolitano-dojs-findings-discriminatory-policing-maricopa-county (terminating Maricopa County’s 287(g) agreements, citing DOJ “findings of discriminatory policing practices within the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO)”)
Su, R. (2010). Local fragmentation as immigration regulation. Houston Law Review, 47, 367–435.
Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act of 2010, Arizona Senate Bill 1070.
Takahashi v. Fish & Game Comm’n, 334 U.S. 410 (1948).
United States v. Arizona, 703 F. Supp. 2d 980, 1008 (D. Ariz. 2010).
United States v. Arizona, 641 F.3d 339 (9th Cir. 2011).
United States v. Arnold, 523 F.3d 941 (9th Cir. 2008).
United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975).
United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 884–85 (1975).
United States v. Flores-Montano, 541 U.S. 149 (2004).
United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976).
United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531 (1985).
United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3d 1294 (10th Cir. 1999).
United States Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (2012a). Fact Sheet. http://www.ice.gov/news/library/factsheets/287g.htm.
United States Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (2012b). Secure communities. http://www.ice.gov/secure_communities/.
United States Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (2012c). Secure communities frequently asked questions. http://www.ice.gov/secure_communities/faq.htm.
United States Department of Justice. (2003, June). Guidance regarding the use of race by federal law enforcement Agencies. http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/spl/documents/guidance_on_race.pdf.
United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (2012). Secure Communities Activated Jurisdictions. http://www.ice.gov/doclib/secure-communities/pdf/sc-activated.pdf.
Valle, del Sol et al. v. Whiting, Plaintiffs Proposed Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Memorandum and Points of Authority in Support, filed July 17, 2012, (D. Ariz. 2012). http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/pi_brief_2b_5.pdf.
Waxman, S. (1996, February 5). Associate deputy attorney to the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of California. (Memorandum).
Wolverton, J. (2011, May 6). States ready to fight reds on immigration program. The New American. http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/immigration/item/2098-states-ready-to-fight-feds-on-immigration-program.
Zolberg, A. R. (2008). A nation by design. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science + Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Chacón, J. (2014). The Transformation of U.S. Immigration Federalism: A Critical Reading of Arizona v. United States . In: Baglay, S., Nakache, D. (eds) Immigration Regulation in Federal States. International Perspectives on Migration, vol 9. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8604-1_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8604-1_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-017-8603-4
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-8604-1
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)