U.S.A v. State Of Ariz.
Decision Date | 28 July 2010 |
Docket Number | No. CV 10-1413-PHX-SRB.,CV 10-1413-PHX-SRB. |
Citation | 703 F.Supp.2d 980 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,v.State of ARIZONA; and Janice K. Brewer, Governor of the State of Arizona, in her Official Capacity, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Arizona |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Edwin Smiley Kneedler, Joshua Wilkenfeld, Varu Chilakamarri, US Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.
John J. Bouma, Joseph G. Adams, Robert Arthur Henry, Snell & Wilmer LLP, Joseph Andrew Kanefield, Office of Governor Janice K. Brewer, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendants.
At issue is the Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Plaintiff the United States (“Pl.'s Mot.”) (Doc. 27).
I. SUMMARY
Against a backdrop of rampant illegal immigration, escalating drug and human trafficking crimes, and serious public safety concerns, the Arizona Legislature enacted a set of statutes and statutory amendments in the form of Senate Bill 1070, the “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act,” 2010 Arizona Session Laws, Chapter 113, which Governor Janice K. Brewer signed into law on April 23, 2010. Seven days later, the Governor signed into law a set of amendments to Senate Bill 1070 under House Bill 2162, 2010 Arizona Session Laws, Chapter 211.1 Among other things, S.B. 1070 requires officers to check a person's immigration status under certain circumstances (Section 2) and authorizes officers to make a warrantless arrest of a person where there is probable cause to believe that the person committed a public offense that makes the person removable from the United States (Section 6). S.B. 1070 also creates or amends crimes for the failure of an alien to apply for or carry registration papers (Section 3), the smuggling of human beings (Section 4), the performance of work by unauthorized aliens, and the transport or harboring of unlawfully present aliens (Section 5).
On July 6, 2010, the United States filed a Complaint with this Court challenging the constitutionality of S.B. 1070, and it also filed a Motion requesting that the Court issue a preliminary injunction to enjoin Arizona from enforcing S.B. 1070 until the Court can make a final determination as to its constitutionality. The United States argues principally that the power to regulate immigration is vested exclusively in the federal government, and that the provisions of S.B. 1070 are therefore preempted by federal law.
S.B. 1070 § 12(A). Therefore, the Court cannot and will not enjoin S.B. 1:070 in its entirety, as certain parties to lawsuits challenging the enactment have requested. The Court is obligated to consider S.B. 1070 on a section by section and provision by provision basis.
Other than seeking a preliminary injunction as to “S.B. 1070,” the United States has not made any argument to preliminarily enjoin and the Court therefore does not enjoin the following provisions of S.B. 1070:
Portion of Section 5 of S.B. 1070
Applying the proper legal standards based upon well-established precedent, the Court finds that the United States is not likely to succeed on the merits in showing that the following provisions of S.B. 1070 are preempted by federal law, and the Court therefore does not enjoin the enforcement of the following provisions of S.B. 1070:
Applying the proper legal standards based upon well-established precedent, the Court finds that the United States is likely to succeed on the merits in showing that the following Sections of S.B. 1070 are preempted by federal law:
The Court also finds that the United States is likely to suffer irreparable harm if the Court does not preliminarily enjoin enforcement of these Sections of S.B. 1070 and that the balance of equities tips in the United States' favor considering the public interest. The Court therefore issues a preliminary injunction enjoining the enforcement of the portion of Section 2 creating A.R.S. § 11-1051(B), Section 3 creating A.R.S. § 13-1509, the portion of Section 5 creating A.R.S. § 13-2928(C), and Section 6 creating A.R.S. § 13-3883(A)(5).
II. BACKGROUNDA. Overview of Federal Immigration Law
Congress has created and refined a complex and detailed statutory framework regulating immigration. The federal immigration scheme is largely enacted through the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., which empowers various federal agencies (including the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), and Department of State (“DOS”)) to administer and enforce the immigration laws. See, e.g., id. §§ 1103-1104. Among its many provisions, the INA sets forth the conditions under which a foreign national may be admitted to and remain in the United States. Id. §§ 1181-1182, 1184. The INA also contains an alien registration system intended to monitor the entry and movement of aliens in the United States. Id. §§ 1201(b), 1301-1306. Various actions may subject an alien to being placed in removal proceedings, such as entering the United States without inspection, presenting fraudulent documents at a port of entry, violating the conditions of admission, or engaging in certain other proscribed conduct. Id. §§ 1225, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1229c, 1231. Violations of immigration laws may also subject an alien to civil and criminal sanctions. E.g., id. §§ 1325, 1306, 1324c. Unlawful presence in the United States is not a federal crime, although it may make the alien removable. See id. §§ 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), 1227(a)(1)(B)-(C).3
Federal alien smuggling laws make it a crime to knowingly bring an unauthorized alien into the country, as well as to harbor such a person or to facilitate unlawful immigration. Id. § 1324. Congress also created sanctions to be implemented against employers who knowingly employ aliens who are not authorized to work when it passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act (“IRCA”) in 1986 Id. § 1324a(a)(1)-(2). Federal law contains no criminal sanction for working without authorization, although document fraud is a civil violation under IRCA. Id. § 1324c. In 1996, Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (“IIRIRA”), which, among other things, created various employment eligibility verification programs. See Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. v. Napolitano (Chicanos Por La Causa II), 558 F.3d 856, 861 (9th Cir.2009).
Federal immigration law also envisions certain areas of cooperation in immigration enforcement among the federal government and state and local governments. See 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g)(1)-(9) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Alabama
...the INA—a conclusion the Supreme Court appears to have rejected, see DeCanas, 424 U.S. at 358, 96 S.Ct. 933; United States v. Arizona, 703 F.Supp.2d 980, 999 (D.Ariz.2010) ( “[In DeCanas ] the Supreme Court rejected the possibility that the INA is so comprehensive that it leaves no room for......
-
Cent. Ala. Fair Hous. Ctr. v. Magee
...the Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC). See United States v. Arizona, 641 F.3d 339, 374 (9th Cir.2011); United States v. Arizona, 703 F.Supp.2d 980, 996 (D.Ariz.2010) (Bolton, J.).b. “Regulation of Immigration” The plaintiffs' first preemption claim is that applying § 30 of HB 56 to Alab......
-
We Are America v. Maricopa Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors
...(“S.B. 1070”), amended section 13–2319; and certain sections of S.B. 1070 have been preliminarily enjoined. See United States v. Arizona, 703 F.Supp.2d 980 (D.Ariz.2010), aff'd United States v. Arizona, 641 F.3d 339 (9th Cir.2011), petition for cert. filed, (Aug. 10, 2011) (No. 10A1277, 11–......
-
Ariz. Dream Act Coal. v. Brewer
...of aliens not lawfully admitted to this country, see, e.g., id. §§ 1225, 1227, 1228, 1229, 1231. See generally United States v. Arizona, 703 F.Supp.2d 980, 987–88 (D.Ariz.2010) (describing the federal immigration scheme). The INA charges the Secretary of Homeland Security with the administr......
-
Susan R. Klein & Ingrid B. Grobey, Debunking Claims of Over-federalization of Criminal Law
...for Lack of Jurisdiction and Failure to State a Claim, with Memorandum of Points and Authorities at 1, Arizona v. United States, 703 F. Supp. 2d 980 (D. Ariz. 2010) [hereinafter U.S. Dep’t of Justice Motion to Dismiss] (No. CV-11- 01072-PHX-SRB) (counting sixteen states, including Arizona),......
-
Unforgiving of those who trespass against U.S.: state laws criminalizing immigration status.
...(2010), available at http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=20263 (last visited Jan. 20, 2011). (174.) United States v. Arizona, 703 F. Supp. 2d 980, 986 (D. Ariz. (175.) Id. at 992. (176.) Id. at 1008. (177.) Lazano, 620 F.3d at 218-19. (178.) De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351, 354 (1976). (1......
-
State sovereign standing: often overlooked, but not forgotten.
...F. Supp. 2d 598 (No. 3:10-cv-00188-HEH), 2010 WL 2417176. (18.) U.S. CONST. art. III, [section] 2. (19.) See United States v. Arizona, 703 F. Supp. 2d 980 (D. Ariz. 2010), aff'd, 641 F.3d 339 (9th Cir. 2011), cert. granted, 80 U.S.L.W. 3090 (U.S. Dec. 12, 2011) (No. (20.) See U.S. CONST. ar......
-
Papers, please: does the constitution permit the states a role in immigration enforcement?
...See id. at 240. (9.) United States v. Arizona, 641 F.3d 339, 343-44 (9th Cir. 2011). (10.) Id. at 344. (11.) United States v. Arizona, 703 F. Supp. 2d 980, 985 (D. Ariz. (12.) S.B. 1070, 49th Gen. Assemb., 2d Reg. Sess., § 1 (Ariz. 2010). (13.) Ariz. S.B. 1070 § 11 (emphasis added). (14.) I......