1. If a federal law or policy is perceived as weak or ineffective, should a state have the right to legislate in that area without federal intervention?

2. Arizona’s law affected Arizona alone and was designed to help Arizona citizens regarding,among other issues, increased employment and reduction of crime. At what point should the federal government have the right to challenge such a state law?

3. Since a challenge based on preemption was known to be an issue from the onset of this statute’s consideration, how might Arizona have better approached its illegal immigration problem?

In 2010, the State of Arizona passed the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act to address problems that the legislature contended were being created by the large number of unlawful immigrants living and working within the state’s borders. Among other provisions, the law created state immigration offenses and expanded the authority of local police to enforce immigration laws by requiring individuals lawfully detained by the police (e.g., a traffic stop) to verify their citizenship. The law also provided criminal penalties for unauthorized aliens who sought or engaged in work within Arizona. The U.S. Department of Justice filed suit against Arizona seeking to invalidate the law on the basis that federal immigration statutes precluded individual states from enacting their own immigration laws. Arizona argued that weak and uneven enforcement of federal immigration laws necessitated state regulation and that the state law did not conflict with the federal law. The U.S. court of appeals ruled in favor of the United States, and the state of Arizona appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Arizona statute as unconstitutional. The Court ruled that the Arizona statute conflicted with the existing federal law and therefore the state statute is preempted and constitutionally unenforceable. The Court reasoned that (1) immigration is a matter within the purview of the federal government and (2) when the federal government creates rules and sanctions with a clear intent to preclude state action, courts will not enforce any state action that conflicts with established federal mandates. 

“Federalism, central to the constitutional design, adopts the principle that both the National and State Governments have elements of sovereignty the other is bound to respect. The Supremacy Clause provides a clear rule that federal law ‘shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary not-withstanding.’ Art. VI, cl. 2. Under this principle, Congress has the power to preempt state law. . . . State law must also give way to federal law in at least two other circumstances. First, States are precluded from regulating conduct in a field that Congress has deter-mined must be regulated by its exclusive governance. Intent can be inferred from a framework of regulation ‘so pervasive . . . that Congress left no room for the States to supplement it’ or where a federal interest is so dominant that the federal system will be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject. Second, state laws are reempted when they conflict with federal law, including when they stand ‘as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.’ ”