The information below explains general legal concepts for educational purposes. It is not legal, financial, or tax advice, and it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Laws and procedures vary by jurisdiction and may change. The author and publisher disclaim liability for actions taken based on this content.
Key Facts
- Federal level: In Arizona v. United States, the Supreme Court held that Sections 3, 5(C), and 6 of Arizona S. B. 1070 were preempted by federal law.
- Federal level: In the same case, the Supreme Court said it was improper to enjoin Section 2(B) before state courts had an opportunity to construe it.
- State level: A July 2010 ABA Journal report described Arizona police requirements to seek proof of a person’s immigration status when officers had a reasonable suspicion the person was in the country illegally.
- State level: The Supreme Court described S. B. 1070 Section 2(B) as requiring officers to make efforts to verify a person’s immigration status with the federal government.
- National overview: Federal immigration statutes supply the framework for how state and local officers communicate and cooperate with federal authorities in immigration-related contexts.
- National overview: Federal statutes on federal alien registration and related penalties provided part of the backdrop for the Court’s conflict analysis involving Arizona’s registration-related provisions.
This archive recovery piece preserves a 2010 ABA leadership theme about “extraordinary” immigration enforcement and shows how that historical framing aligns with the later Supreme Court’s federal preemption analysis of Arizona S. B. 1070.
In July 2010 reporting on litigation over Arizona’s immigration enforcement law, an ABA Journal article described a video quote from ABA President Carolyn B. Lamm: “It’s an extraordinary step, an extraordinary law and it requires extraordinary action.”
The same 2010 report described Arizona’s approach as requiring police to seek proof of a person’s immigration status when officers had a reasonable suspicion the person was in the country illegally.
In Arizona v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed whether key provisions of Arizona S. B. 1070 could operate alongside federal immigration law.
The Court held that Sections 3, 5(C), and 6 were preempted by federal law.
The Court’s treatment of Section 2(B) differed: it said it was improper to enjoin Section 2(B) before state courts had an opportunity to construe it, and it emphasized the need for a conflict showing with federal immigration law and objectives.
To summarize the Court’s outcomes in a way that matches the preemption dispute, this table maps the provisions at issue to the results described in the opinion.
| Arizona S. B. 1070 provision referenced by the Supreme Court | Supreme Court outcome described in the opinion | What that meant for federal-state conflict analysis |
|---|---|---|
| Sections 3, 5(C), and 6 | Preempted by federal law | The Court treated those provisions as incompatible with federal control over the relevant immigration framework |
| Section 2(B) | Not approved for an immediate injunction before state courts construed it | The Court framed the issue as requiring construction and a conflict showing before federal intervention |
Federal statutes also appear in the background for how courts think about federal-state interaction in immigration enforcement. For example, 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g)(10)(A) and (B) addresses communication and cooperation between officers and the Attorney General and provides that nothing in that subsection requires an agreement.
Federal provisions on information sharing and verification further shape the framework discussed in these disputes. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1373, a federal, state, or local government entity may not prohibit or restrict other government entities from sending or receiving immigration-status information to or from the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and the INS must respond to an inquiry by providing requested verification or status information.
Federal alien-registration and penalty statutes supplied another part of the structure discussed in registration-related conflict analysis. 8 U.S.C. § 1304 requires that certain aliens carry proof of alien registration and includes misdemeanor consequences for failure to comply, and 8 U.S.C. § 1306 provides misdemeanor penalties for willful failures related to applying for registration and being fingerprinted.
This archive record reflects what was said in 2010 reporting, and it does not replace the controlling legal holdings from the later Supreme Court decision and the federal statutory text.
Related legal information
Sources
- ABA Journal report on the amicus brief and Lamm quote
- Arizona v. United States slip opinion
- 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g)(10) on communication and cooperation
- 8 U.S.C. § 1373 on information sharing and INS responses
- 8 U.S.C. § 1304 on carrying alien registration proof
- 8 U.S.C. § 1306 on penalties for willful failure to register or be fingerprinted
