United States v. S. Carolina
| Decision Date | 23 July 2013 |
| Docket Number | 12–1099,Nos. 12–1096,12–2514,12–2533.,s. 12–1096 |
| Citation | 720 F.3d 518 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. State of SOUTH CAROLINA; Nikki Haley, in her official capacity as the Governor of South Carolina, Defendants–Appellants, United Mexican States; Government of Argentina; Government of Bolivia; Government of Brazil; Government of Chile; Government of Colombia; Government of Costa Rica; Government of Dominican Republic; Government of Ecuador; Government of Guatemala; Government of El Salvador; Government of Honduras; Government of Nicaragua; Government of Paraguay; Government of Peru; Government of Uruguay, Amici Supporting Appellee. Lowcountry Immigration Coalition; Mujeres De Triunfo; Nuevos Caminos; South Carolina Victim Assistance Network; South Carolina Hispanic Leadership Council; Service Employees International Union; Southern Regional Joint Board of Workers United; Jane Doe, No. 1; Jane Doe, No. 2; John Doe, No. 1; Yajaira Benet–Smith; Keller Barron; John McKenzie; Sandra Jones, Plaintiffs–Appellees, v. Nikki Haley, in her official capacity as the Governor of South Carolina; Alan Wilson, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Defendants–Appellants, and James Alton Cannon, in his official capacity as the Sheriff of Charleston County; Scarlett A. Wilson, in her official capacity as Solicitor of the Ninth Judicial Circuit, Defendants. United States of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. State of South Carolina; Nikki Haley, in her official capacity as the Governor of South Carolina, Defendants–Appellants. Lowcountry Immigration Coalition; Mujeres de Triunfo; Nuevos Caminos; South Carolina Victim Assistance Network; South Carolina Hispanic Leadership Council; Service Employees International Union; Southern Regional Joint Board of Workers United; Jane Doe, No. 1; Jane Doe, No. 2; John Doe, No. 1; Yajaira Benet–Smith; Keller Barron; John McKenzie; Sandra Jones, Plaintiffs–Appellees, United States of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. State of South Carolina; Nikki Haley, in her official capacity as the Governor of South Carolina, Defendants–Appellants. Lowcountry Immigration Coalition; Mujeres de Triunfo; Nuevos Caminos; South Carolina Victim Assistance Network; South Carolina Hispanic Leadership Council; Service Employees International Union; Southern Regional Joint Board of Workers United; Jane Doe, No. 1; Jane Doe, No. 2; John Doe, No. 1; Yajaira Benet–Smith; Keller Barron; John McKenzie; Sandra Jones, Plaintiffs–Appellees, v. Nikki Haley, in her official capacity as the Governor of South Carolina; Alan Wilson, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Defendants–Appellants, and James Alton Cannon, in his official capacity as the Sheriff of Charleston County; Scarlett A. Wilson, in her official capacity as Solicitor of the Ninth Judicial Circuit, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Preempted
S.C.Code 1976, §§ 16–9–460, 16–13–480, 16–17–750, 17–13–170ARGUED:James Emory Smith, Jr., Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellants. Daniel Tenny, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.; Karen C. Tumlin, National Immigration Law Center, Los Angeles, California, for Appellees. ON BRIEF:Alan Wilson, Attorney General, Robert D. Cook, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellants. William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, Stuart F. Delery, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Beth S. Brinkmann, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Mark B. Stern, Benjamin M. Schultz, Jeffrey E. Sandberg, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Federal Appellee. Linton Joaquin, Nora A. Preciado, Melissa S. Keaney, Alvaro M. Huerta, National Immigration Law Center, Los Angeles, California; Andre Segura, Omar Jadwat, Lee Gelernt, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York, New York; Cecillia D. Wang, Katherine Desormeau, San Francisco, California, Justin B. Cox, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation–Immigrants' Rights Project, Atlanta, Georgia; Susan K. Dunn, American Civil Liberties Union of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina; Victor Viramontes, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Los Angeles, California; Michelle R. Lapointe, Naomi Tsu, Atlanta, Georgia, Samuel Brooke, Southern Poverty Law Center, Montgomery, Alabama; Alice Paylor, Rosen, Rosen & Hagood, Charleston, South Carolina; Foster Maer, Latino Justice PRLDEF, New York, New York for Appellees Lowcountry Immigration Coalition, Mujeres De Triunfo, Nuevos Caminos, South Carolina Victim Assistance Network, South Carolina Hispanic Leadership Council, Service Employees International Union, Southern Regional Joint Board of Workers United, Jane Doe, No. 1, Jane Doe, No. 2, John Doe, No. 1, Yajaira Benet–Smith, Keller Barron, John McKenzie, Sandra Jones. Stephen Nickelsburg, Carla Gorniak, Alexander M. Feldman, Clifford Chance U.S. LLP, Washington, D.C.; Henry L. Solano, Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, Denver, Colorado, for The United Mexican States, Amicus Curiae.
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by published opinion. Judge DAVIS wrote the opinion, in which Judge DUNCAN and Judge AGEE joined.
In 2011, the South Carolina legislature passed, and the governor signed, a package of immigration laws known as Act 69 (“the Act”). In this pre-enforcement challenge, the district court preliminarily enjoined Sections 4, 5, and 6(B)(2) of the Act on federal preemption grounds. These sections made it a state criminal offense for (1) a person unlawfully present in the United States to conceal, harbor, or shelter herself from detection, or allow herself to be transported within the state; (2) a third party to participate in concealing, sheltering, or transporting a person unlawfully present in the United States; (3) an alien 18 years or older to fail to carry an alien registration card; and (4) an individual to display or possess a false identification card for the purpose of proving lawful presence. South Carolina (“the State”) brings this interlocutory appeal. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
The South Carolina General Assembly passed the Act, a comprehensive package of laws and regulations regarding immigration, in response to a perceived failure of the United States to secure its southern border and protect its national security. SeeUnited States v. South Carolina, 840 F.Supp.2d 898, 904 (D.S.C.2011) (“South Carolina I ”), remanded for reconsideration, No. 12–1096, Doc. 72 (4th Cir. Aug. 16, 2012). Legislative supporters of the Act said they hoped the bill would encourage persons unlawfully present in South Carolina to find “a different state to go to.” Id. The Act was signed by the governor in 2011 and scheduled to take effect January 1, 2012.
The Act contained twenty sections, only three of which are at issue in this appeal. Subsections 4(A) and (C) make it a state felony for an unlawfully present person to allow himself or herself to be “transported or moved” within the state or to be harbored or sheltered to avoid detection.1 Violationof those subsections is punishable by a fine not to exceed $5,000, up to five years in prison, or both.
Subsections 4(B) and (D) make it a state felony, also punishable by a fine not to exceed $5,000, up to five years in prison, or both, to “transport, move or attempt to transport” or “conceal, harbor or shelter” a person “with intent to further that person's unlawful entry into the United States” or to help that person avoid apprehension or detection.2
Section 5 makes it a state misdemeanor for any person 18 years or older to “fail to carry” “a certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card.” 3 A violation of Section 5 is punishable by a fine of not more than $100, up to 30 days' imprisonment, or both.
Subsection 6(B)(2) makes it unlawful for any person to display or possess a counterfeit or false ID for the purpose of providing proof of lawful presences in the United States.4 Conviction for a first violation of subsection 6(B)(2) is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than $100 or imprisonment of not more than 30 days. Conviction for a second offense under the section is a felony punishable by a fine of not more than $500 or imprisonment of not more than five years.
In two separate actions filed in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, the Lowcountry Immigration Coalition (“Lowcountry Plaintiffs”) and the United States challenged various sections of the Act, largely on preemption grounds. Lowcountry Plaintiffs is a group of individuals and organizations, including the National Immigration Law Center, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the American Civil Liberties Union of South Carolina.
The district court, after consolidating the cases, found Sections 4, 5, and 6(B)(2) () were preempted by federal law and issued a preliminary injunction as to those sections. South Carolina I, 840 F.Supp.2d 898. Before we could hear the State's appeal from that order, the Supreme Court decided Arizona v. United States, ––– U.S. ––––, 132 S.Ct. 2492, 183 L.Ed.2d 351 (2012), striking down several provisions of an Arizona law that, inter alia, made it a state crime for an alien to fail to carry an alien registration document and for an unauthorized alien to apply for, solicit, or perform work. We remanded the instant case to the district court for reconsideration in light of Arizona. On remand, the district court let stand its injunction of Sections 4, 5, and 6(B)(2).5United States v. South Carolina, 906 F.Supp.2d 463, 466–69, 473–74 (D.S.C.2012) (“ South Carolina II”).
South Carolina appealed to this Court. We have jurisdiction pursuant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Guilford Coll. v. McAleenan
...prevent irreparable harm and to preserve the ability of the court to render meaningful relief on the merits.12 United States v. South Carolina , 720 F.3d 518, 524 (4th Cir. 2013). The party seeking a preliminary injunction bears the burden of justifying such relief. Wagner v. Bd. of Educ. ,......
-
Toure v. Hott
...preliminary injunctions aim "to preserve the relative positions of the parties" and "protect the status quo." United States v. South Carolina , 720 F.3d 518, 524 (4th Cir. 2013). The Fourth Circuit defines the "status quo" as the "last uncontested status between the parties which preceded t......
-
Nat'l Pub. Radio, Inc. v. Klavans
...is merely to preserve the relative positions of the parties until a trial on the merits can be held." United States v. South Carolina , 720 F.3d 518, 524 (4th Cir. 2013) (quoting University of Texas v. Camenisch , 451 U.S. 390, 395, 101 S.Ct. 1830, 68 L.Ed.2d 175 (1981) ). A preliminary inj......
-
Rhoades v. Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, LLC
...States v. South Carolina , 840 F. Supp. 2d 898, 914 (D.S.C. 2011), modified in part , 906 F. Supp. 2d 463 (D.S.C. 2012), aff'd , 720 F.3d 518 (4th Cir. 2013) (citing Univ. of Tex. v. Camenisch , 451 U.S. 390, 395, 101 S.Ct. 1830, 68 L.Ed.2d 175 (1981) ). 12. To obtain a preliminary injuncti......
-
DEBS AND THE FEDERAL EQUITY JURISDICTION.
...what that limiting principle might be. (14) See Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 394 (2012); United States v. South Carolina, 720 F.3d 518, 533 (4th Cir. 2013); United States v. Alabama, 691 F.3d 1269, 1301 (11th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 569 U.S. 968 (2013) (mem.). For older cases o......
-
"not the Place for You": Anti-immigrant Housing Ordinances, Federal Preemption, and Keller v. City of Fremont, 719 F.3d 931 (8th Cir. 2013), Cert. Denied, 134 S. Ct. 2140 (2014)
...24. See, e.g., Ga. Code Ann. § 16-11-201 (West 2014); S.C. Code Ann. § 16-9-460 (2013), invalidated by United States v. South Carolina, 720 F.3d 518 (4th Cir. 2013); Beason-Hammon Alabama Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act, No. 535, § 13, 2011 Ala. Acts 888, 907-09; Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §......