1. Does the IRCA expressly preserve some state powers dealing with the employment of unauthorized aliens from federal preemption?
2. What was Congress’s objective in authorizing the development of E-Verify?
3. What must an Arizona employer do to avoid sanctions under the Legal Arizona Workers Act?

[The Legal Arizona Workers Act (LAWA) 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 E-Verify. The Chamber of Commerce of the United States and various businesses and civil rights organizations filed suit against those charged with administering the Arizona law, arguing that the state law's license suspension and revocation provisions were preempted by federal immigration law, and that the mandatory use of E-Verify was impliedly preempted. The Immigration Reform and Control Act makes it "unlawful for a person or other entity … to hire, or to recruit, or to refer for a fee, for employment in the United States an alien knowing the alien is an unauthorized alien." Employers that violate this prohibition may be subjected to federal civil and criminal sanctions. IRCA, in Section 1324a(h)(2), also restricts the ability of states to combat employment of unauthorized workers; the Act expressly preempts "any State or local law imposing civil or criminal sanctions (other than through licensing and similar laws) upon those who employ, recruit or refer for a fee for employment, unauthorized aliens." The district court found that the IRCA did not preempt the Arizona law because the LAWA did no more than impose licensing conditions on businesses operating within the state; also, Congress expressed no intent to prevent states from making E-Verify mandatory. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.]
ROBERTS, C. J. …
I.
… IRCA expressly preempts States from imposing "civil or criminal sanctions" on those who employ unauthorized aliens, "other than through licensing and similar laws." The Arizona law, on its face, purports to impose sanctions through licensing laws. The state law authorizes state courts to suspend or revoke an employer's business licenses if that employer knowingly or intentionally employs an unauthorized alien. The Arizona law defines "license" as "any agency permit, certificate, approval, registration, charter or similar form of authorization that is required by law and that is issued by any agency for the purposes of operating a business in" the State.…
IRCA expressly preempts some state powers dealing with the employment of unauthorized aliens and it expressly preserves others. We hold that 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 Arizona law provides employers with the same affirmative defense for good-faith compliance with the I-9 process as does the federal law.… And both the federal and Arizona law accord employers a rebuttable presumption of compliance with the law when they use E-Verify to validate a finding of employment eligibility.…
License suspension and revocation are significant sanctions. But they are typical attributes of a licensing regime. Numerous Arizona laws provide for the suspension or revocation of licenses for failing to comply with specified state laws. Federal law recognizes that the authority to license includes the authority to suspend, revoke, annul, or withdraw a license.… It makes little sense to preserve state authority to impose sanctions through licensing, but not allow States to revoke licenses when appropriate as one of those sanctions.…
All that is required to avoid sanctions under the Legal Arizona Workers Act is to refrain from knowingly or intentionally violating the employment law.
Employers enjoy safe harbors from liability when they use the I-9 system and E-Verify-as Arizona law requires them to do. The most rational path for employers is to obey the law-both the law barring the employment of unauthorized aliens and the law prohibiting discrimination-and there is no reason to suppose that Arizona employers will choose not to do so.

As with any piece of legislation, Congress did indeed seek to strike a balance among a variety of interests when it enacted IRCA. Part of that balance, however, involved allocating authority between the Federal Government and the States. The principle that Congress adopted in doing so was not that the Federal Government can impose large sanctions, and the States only small ones. IRCA instead preserved state authority over a particular category of sanctions-those imposed "through licensing and similar laws." …
II.
The Chamber also argues that Arizona's requirement that employers use the federal E-Verify system to determine whether an employee is authorized to work is impliedly preempted. In the Chamber's view, "Congress wanted to develop a reliable and non-burdensome system of work-authorization verification" that could serve as an alternative to the I-9 procedures, and the "mandatory use of E-Verify impedes that purpose." …
B.
Congress's objective in authorizing the development of E-Verify was to ensure reliability in employment authorization verification, combat counterfeiting of identity documents, and protect employee privacy. 8 U. S. C. §1324a(d)(2). Arizona's requirement that employers operating within its borders use E-Verify in no way obstructs achieving those aims.