On July 6, 2010, the United States filed a lawsuit against the State of Arizona and the Governor, in her official capacity, in the U.S. District Court of Arizona, Phoenix Division. The plaintiff, represented by the Department of Justice, sought declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming that the recently enacted S.B. 1070 was a violation of the Supremacy Clause and the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and was preempted by federal law. The plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction the same day to enjoin the defendant from enforcing S.B. 1070 until the Court made a determination as to its constitutionality. Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that S.B. 1070, which contains several provisions designed to “discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens” in Arizona, impermissibly infringes on the federal government’s right to enact and enforce immigration policy.

On July 28, 2010, the court [Judge Susan R. Bolton] granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. [703 F.Supp.2d 980] The court found that the plaintiffs were not likely to succeed on the merits in showing that certain provisions of the legislation are preempted by federal law, but that on other provisions the plaintiffs were likely to succeed. Some of the enjoined provisions include a portion of Section 2 of S.B. 1070 “requiring that an officer make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested if there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is unlawfully present in the United States” and Section 3 of S.B. 1070 “requiring verification of the immigration status of any person arrested prior to releasing that person and creating a crime for the failure to apply for or carry alien registration papers.”

In the two weeks immediately following the complaint filing, several groups filed motions for amicus briefs, including a collection of states in support of the defendants and the American Bar Association in support of the plaintiffs. The court denied these amicus pleadings in an order on September 3, 2010, as moot, since the court had not considered the briefs before issuing the preliminary injunction.

Immediately following the issuance of the preliminary injunction, the defendants filed an interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit. The 9th Circuit upheld the district court’s decision in an opinion filed on April 11, 2011. The court examined the statute on its face to determine whether it conflicted with Congressional intent and therefore was preempted by the Supremacy Clause. The court found that Congress intended for “systematic state immigration enforcement [to] occur under the direction and close supervision of the Attorney General” and that S.B. 1070 impermissibly interfered with that intent. The court affirmed the preliminary injunction as issued by the district court.

The defendants appealed that ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted cert on December 12, 2011 and arguments were held April 25, 2012.

In two related cases [Friendly House v. Whiting and League of United Latin American Citizens v. Arizona], plaintiffs have filed suit against the State of Arizona also seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the implementation of S.B. 1070. In one, the district court signed an order staying the case until the Supreme Court decision was released in Arizona v. United States. In the other, the case is currently under review by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

On June 25, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court announced their decision, affirming in part and reversing in part. The court held that several provisions of S.B. 1070 were properly enjoined but declined to strike down Section 2(B), which requires state police to check the immigration status of people arrested under non-immigration state law. The court did not uphold the provision either: if it is construed not to authorize extra detention time, it may be constitutional.

Elizabeth Daligga - 06/25/2012


compress summary