Canas v. Bica, No. 74-882

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtBRENNAN
Citation96 S.Ct. 933,47 L.Ed.2d 43,424 U.S. 351
PartiesLeonor Alberti DeCANAS and Miguel Canas, Petitioners, v. Anthony G. BICA and Juan Silva
Docket NumberNo. 74-882
Decision Date25 February 1976

424 U.S. 351
96 S.Ct. 933
47 L.Ed.2d 43
Leonor Alberti DeCANAS and Miguel Canas, Petitioners,

v.

Anthony G. BICA and Juan Silva.

No. 74-882.
Argued Dec. 16, 1975.
Decided Feb. 25, 1976.
Syllabus

Section 2805(a) of the California Labor Code, which prohibits an employer from knowingly employing an alien who is not entitled to lawful residence in the United States if such employment would have an adverse effect on lawful resident workers, held not to be unconstitutional as a regulation of immigration or as being preempted under the Supremacy Clause by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Pp. 354-365.

(a) Standing alone, the fact that aliens are the subject of a state statute does not render it a regulation of immigration. Even if such local regulation has some purely speculative and indirect impact on immigration, it does not thereby become a constitutionally proscribed regulation of immigration that Congress itself would be powerless to authorize or approve. Pp. 354-356.

(b) Pre-emption on the basis of congressional intent to "occupy the field" and thereby invalidate even harmonious state regulation is not required in this case either because "the nature of the regulated subject matter permits no other conclusion" or because "Congress has unmistakably so ordained" that result. Florida Lime & Avocado Growers v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 142, 83 S.Ct. 1210, 1217, 10 L.Ed.2d 248. Section 2805(a) is clearly within a State's police power to regulate the employment relationship so as to protect workers within the State, and it will not be presumed that Congress, in enacting the INA, intended to oust state authority to regulate the employment relationship covered by § 2805(a) in a manner consistent with pertinent federal laws, absent any showing of such intent either in the INA's wording or legislative history or in its comprehensive scheme for regulating immigration and naturalization. Rather than there being evidence that Congress "has unmistakably . . . ordained" exclusivity of federal regulation in the field of employment of illegal aliens, the Farm Labor Contractor Registration Act, whose provisions prohibiting farm labor contractors from employing illegal aliens were enacted to supplement state action, is persuasive evidence that the INA should not be taken as legislation expressing Congress' judgment to have uniform federal regu-

Page 352

lations in matters affecting employment of illegal aliens, and therefore barring state legislation such as § 2805(a). Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 61 S.Ct. 399, 85 L.Ed. 581; Pennsylvania v. Nelson, 350 U.S. 497, 76 S.Ct. 477, 100 L.Ed. 640, distinguished. Pp. 356-363.

(c) It is for the California courts to construe § 2805(a), and then to decide in the first instance whether and to what extent § 2805(a), as construed, is unconstitutional as conflicting with the INA or other federal laws or regulations. Pp. 363-365.

40 Cal.App.3d 976, 115 Cal.Rptr. 444, reversed and remanded.

Robert S. Catz, Washington, D. C., for petitioners; Howard S. Scher, Washington, D. C., Burton D. Fretz, Cal. Rural Legal Assistance, Inc., Santa Maria, Cal., and Ralph Santiago Abascal, Cal. Rural Legal Assistance, Inc., Sacramento, Cal., on the briefs.

William S. Marrs, Berkeley, Cal., for respondents; Robert L. Trapp, Jr., Santa Maria, Cal., on the brief.

Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court.

California Labor Code Ann. § 2805(a) provides that "(n)o employer shall knowingly employ an alien who is not entitled to lawful residence in the United States if such employment would have an adverse effect on lawful resident workers." 1 The question presented in this case is whether § 2805(a) is unconstitutional either because it

Page 353

is an attempt to regulate immigration and naturalization or because it is pre-empted under the Supremacy Clause, Art. VI, cl. 2, of the Constitution, by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 66 Stat. 163, as amended, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., the comprehensive federal statutory scheme for regulation of immigration and naturalization.

Petitioners, who are migrant farmworkers, brought this action pursuant to § 2805(c) against respondent farm labor contractors in California Superior Court. The complaint alleged that respondents had refused petitioners continued employment due to a surplus of labor resulting from respondents' knowing employment, in violation of § 2805(a), of aliens not lawfully admitted to residence in the United States. Petitioners sought reinstatement and a permanent injunction against respondents' willful employment of illegal aliens. 2 The Superior Court, in an unreported opinion, dismissed the complaint, holding "that Labor Code 2805 is unconstitutional . . . (because) (i)t encroaches upon, and interferes with, a comprehensive regulatory scheme enacted by Congress in the exercise of its exclusive power over immigration . . . ." App. 17a. The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, affirmed, 40 Cal.App.3d 976, 115 Cal.Rptr. 444 (1974). The Court of Appeal held that § 2805(a) is an attempt to regulate the conditions for admission of foreign nationals, and therefore unconstitutional because, "in the area of immigration and naturalization, congressional power is exclusive."

Page 354

Id., at 979, 115 Cal.Rptr., at 446.3 The Court of Appeal further indicated that state regulatory power over this subject matter was foreclosed when Congress, "as an incident of national sovereignty," enacted the INA as a comprehensive scheme governing all aspects of immigration and naturalization, including the employment of aliens, and "specifically and intentionally declined to add sanctions on employers to its control mechanism." Ibid.4 The Supreme Court of California denied review. We granted certiorari, 422 U.S. 1040, 95 S.Ct. 2654, 45 L.Ed.2d 692 (1975). We reverse.

I

Power to regulate immigration is unquestionably exclusively a federal power. See, e. g., Passenger Cases, 7 How. 283, 12 L.Ed. 702 (1849); Henderson v. Mayor of New York, 92 U.S. 259, 23 L.Ed. 543 (1876); Chy Lung v. Freeman, 92 U.S.

Page 355

275, 23 L.Ed. 550 (1876); Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698, 13 S.Ct. 1016, 37 L.Ed. 905 (1893). But the Court has never held that every state enactment which in any way deals with aliens is a regulation of immigration and thus per se pre-empted by this constitutional power, whether latent or exercised. For example, Takahashi v. Fish & Game Comm'n, 334 U.S. 410, 415-422, 68 S.Ct. 1138, 1140-1144, 92 L.Ed. 1478 (1948), and Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365, 372-373, 91 S.Ct. 1848, 1852, 29 L.Ed.2d 534 (1971), cited a line of cases that upheld certain discriminatory state treatment of aliens lawfully within the United States. Although the "doctrinal foundations" of the cited cases, which generally arose under the Equal Protection Clause, e. g., Clarke v. Deckebach, 274 U.S. 392, 47 S.Ct. 587, 71 L.Ed. 1115 (1927), "were undermined in Takahashi," see In re Griffiths, 413 U.S. 717, 718-722, 93 S.Ct. 2851, 2853-2855, 37 L.Ed.2d 910 (1973); Graham v. Richardson, supra, at 372-375, 91 S.Ct., at 1852-1853, they remain authority that, standing alone, the fact that aliens are the subject of a state statute does not render it a regulation of immigration, which is essentially a determination of who should or should not be admitted into the country, and the conditions under which a legal entrant may remain. Indeed, there would have been no need, in cases such as Graham, Takahashi, or Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 61 S.Ct. 399, 85 L.Ed. 581 (1941), even to discuss the relevant congressional enactments in finding pre-emption of state regulation if all state regulation of aliens was ipso facto regulation of immigration, for the existence vel non of federal regulation is wholly irrelevant if the Constitution of its own force requires pre-emption of such state regulation. In this case, California has sought to strengthen its economy by adopting federal standards in imposing criminal sanctions against state employers who knowingly employ aliens who have no federal right to employment within the country; even if such local regulation has some purely speculative and indirect impact on immigration, it does not thereby be-

Page 356

come a constitutionally proscribed regulation of immigration that Congress itself would be powerless to authorize or approve. Thus, absent congressional action, § 2805 would not be an invalid state incursion on federal power.

II

Even when the Constitution does not itself commit exclusive power to regulate a particular field to the Federal Government, there are situations in which state regulation, although harmonious with federal regulation, must nevertheless be invalidated under the Supremacy Clause. As we stated in Florida Lime & Avocado Growers v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 142, 83 S.Ct. 1210, 1217, 10 L.Ed.2d 248 (1963):

"(F)ederal regulation . . . should not be deemed preemptive of state regulatory power in the absence of persuasive reasons either that the nature of the regulated subject matter permits no other conclusion, or that the Congress has unmistakably so ordained."

In this case, we cannot conclude that pre-emption is required either because "the nature of the . . . subject matter (regulation of employment of illegal aliens) permits no other conclusion," or because "Congress has unmistakably so ordained" that result.

States possess broad authority under their police powers to regulate the employment relationship to protect workers within the State. Child labor laws, minimum and other wage laws, laws affecting occupational health and safety, and workmen's compensation laws are only a few examples. California's attempt in § 2805(a) to prohibit the knowing employment by California employers of persons not entitled to lawful residence in the United States, let alone to work here, is certainly within the mainstream of such police power regulation....

To continue reading

Request your trial
476 practice notes
  • Part V
    • United States
    • Federal Register February 13, 2008
    • February 13, 2008
    ...working conditions of citizens and legally admitted aliens.* * *'' Sure-Tan v. NLRB, 467 U.S. 883, 892 (1984) (citing De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351, 356-57, 96 S.Ct. 933, 936-37 (1976). And it is not only wages that are depressed, as Senator Kennedy stated in May W e have, unfortunately, e......
  • Arizona Contractors Ass'n Inc. v. Candelaria, No. CV07-02496-PHX-NVW.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. District of Arizona
    • February 7, 2008
    ...(2000)). States at that time had authority to enact and enforce sanctions against employers of unauthorized aliens. See De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351, 96 S.Ct. 933, 47 L.Ed.2d 43 (1976). Indeed, at least twelve states had employer sanctions statutes that proscribed "knowing" employment of ......
  • Lorincie v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transp. Auth., Civil Action No. 95-7107.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • September 29, 1998
    ...question: did Congress intend preemption? Id. The party claiming preemption carries the burden of proving such intent. De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351, 96 S.Ct. 933, 47 L.Ed.2d 43 The Supreme Court addressed the issue of BIA preemption in Napier v. Atlantic Coast Line R.R., 272 U.S. 605, 47 ......
  • Frank Bros., Inc. v. Wisconsin Dept. of Transp., No. 03-3207.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • June 3, 2005
    ...additional needs or imposing further requirements in the field." Hillsborough, 471 U.S. at 717, 105 S.Ct. 2371 (citing De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351 at 359-60, 96 S.Ct. 933, 47 L.Ed.2d 43 As far as the particular Davis-Bacon Act regulation at question here pertaining to truck drivers, 29 C......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
465 cases
  • Arizona Contractors Ass'n Inc. v. Candelaria, No. CV07-02496-PHX-NVW.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. District of Arizona
    • February 7, 2008
    ...(2000)). States at that time had authority to enact and enforce sanctions against employers of unauthorized aliens. See De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351, 96 S.Ct. 933, 47 L.Ed.2d 43 (1976). Indeed, at least twelve states had employer sanctions statutes that proscribed "knowing" employment of ......
  • Lorincie v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transp. Auth., Civil Action No. 95-7107.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
    • September 29, 1998
    ...question: did Congress intend preemption? Id. The party claiming preemption carries the burden of proving such intent. De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351, 96 S.Ct. 933, 47 L.Ed.2d 43 The Supreme Court addressed the issue of BIA preemption in Napier v. Atlantic Coast Line R.R., 272 U.S. 605, 47 ......
  • Frank Bros., Inc. v. Wisconsin Dept. of Transp., No. 03-3207.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • June 3, 2005
    ...additional needs or imposing further requirements in the field." Hillsborough, 471 U.S. at 717, 105 S.Ct. 2371 (citing De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351 at 359-60, 96 S.Ct. 933, 47 L.Ed.2d 43 As far as the particular Davis-Bacon Act regulation at question here pertaining to truck drivers, 29 C......
  • Lyttle v. United States, CASE NO. 4:11-CV-152 (CDL)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Georgia
    • March 31, 2012
    ...treatment of aliens lawfully in the country.'" Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, 131 S. Ct. 1968, 1973 (2011) (quoting De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351, 353, 359 (1976)) (emphasis added). Defendants ignore the fact that the INA provides an administrative process for the deportation and immigrat......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 firm's commentaries
  • This Week At The Ninth: Contractor Speech And Seized Cars
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • October 12, 2021
    ...Key highlight: "[T]he statute is aimed at the employment relationship-a traditional sphere of state regulation. See DeCanas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351, 356 (1976). Such rules understandably vary based on the nature of the work performed or the industry in which the work is performed, and section......
  • This Week At The Ninth: Contractor Speech And Seized Cars
    • United States
    • Mondaq United States
    • October 12, 2021
    ...Key highlight: "[T]he statute is aimed at the employment relationship-a traditional sphere of state regulation. See DeCanas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351, 356 (1976). Such rules understandably vary based on the nature of the work performed or the industry in which the work is performed, and section......
7 books & journal articles
  • The Supremacy Clause and Federal Preemption of State Water Quality Law
    • United States
    • The Clean Water Act and the Constitution. Legal Structure and the Public's Right to a Clean and Healthy Environment Part I
    • April 20, 2009
    ...Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67 (1941); see also Ray , 435 U.S. at 158; Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 430 U.S. 519, 526 (1977); De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351, 363 (1976). 30. Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, 330 U.S. 363, 373 (2000). 31. See 31 U.S.C. §3713(a)(1)(A)(iii). 32. 15 U.S.C. §......
  • A DOCTRINE WITHOUT EXCEPTION: CRITIQUING AN IMMIGRATION EXCEPTION TO THE ANTICOMMANDEERING RULE.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 169 Nbr. 1, December 2020
    • December 1, 2020
    ...words of the district court--immigration policies 'contrary to those preferred by the federal government.'"). (40) See De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351, 354 (1976) ("[The] [p]ower to regulate immigration is unquestionably exclusively a federal (41) See Arizona v. United States 567 U.S. 387, 3......
  • A TRIP THROUGH EMPLOYMENT LAW: PROTECTING THERAPEUTIC PSILOCYBIN USERS IN THE WORKPLACE.
    • United States
    • Journal of Law and Health Vol. 35 Nbr. 1, September 2021
    • September 22, 2021
    ...generally employ a presumption against pre-emption, particularly in areas traditionally regulated by the states."). (153) DeCanas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351, 356 (1976); See also Lingle v. Norge Div. of Magic Chef, Inc., 486 U.S. 399, 412 (1988) (quoting Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. Coyne, 482 U.......
  • IMMIGRATION LAW - EXPANDING CRIMES INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE: NIGERIAN REFUGEE DEPORTED FOR FAILING TO REGISTER AS SEX OFFENDER - BAKOR V. BARR.
    • United States
    • Suffolk Transnational Law Review Vol. 44 Nbr. 1, January 2021
    • January 1, 2021
    ...amended many times over the years [it] contains many of the most important provisions of immigration law." Id. (15) See DeCanas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351, 354 (1976) (explaining federal preemption is "power to regulate immigration is unquestionably exclusively [ ] federal power"); Kleindienst v......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT