ABSTRACT
One of the interesting unique aspects of the American legal system is that it really is two systems, namely one at the federal level and one at the state level. Generally, the two systems have little interaction. That is to say, the federal legal system focuses on issues involving the federal government, foreign affairs, and relations between the states. Conversely, the state legal system focuses on matters state specific matters such as education and healthcare. Two areas, however, where the state and federal legal system often interact and occasional collide is immigration and crime. The 2012 Supreme Court case, Arizona v. United States is illustrative of the complexities that exist between the state and federal legal systems, especially in regards to immigration and law enforcement.
As the state with the second longest border with Mexico, Arizona has been at the forefront of the immigration debate for over fifty years. However, since the issue of immigration, both legal and illegal, has generally been administered by federal authorities such as the Immigration and Naturalization Service, in the past; and the Department of Homeland Security currently, Arizona State authorities have historically had to defer to the national government on the regulation of local immigration issues.
In order to gain more local control of illegal immigration issues that were affecting Arizona communities, in 2010 the Arizona legislature enacted SB 1070. To be sure, in passing the law, the legislature stated that its intent was to “make attrition through enforcement” or increase that likelihood that undocumented migrants would return home voluntarily or not forgo illegally entering the state rather than have to deal with being caught, detained and go through the Arizona State immigration process (Kobach, 2008). In other words, the law sought to make illegal immigration enforcement so strict so as the deter people from even thinking about illegally entering or staying in the state.
While SB 1070 was generally focuses on resolving local illegal immigration issues, several provisions of the law was specifically focused on law enforcement. Under Section 2, the law requires state and local police to check the immigration status of any person they arrest if there is reasonable suspicion that the person is an undocumented migrant (Arizona v. United States, 2012). Section 3 makes it a state crime to violate federal immigration regulations that require an immigrant to register with the federal government and to carry the registration card or papers that were issued to them upon registration (Arizona v. United States, 2012). Section 5 makes it a state crime for undocumented migrants to seek employment or work within the state (Arizona v. United States, 2012). Lastly, Section 6 authorizes state and local police to conduct a warrantless arrest on any person they a probable cause to believe acted in a manner that would get them deported (Arizona v. United States, 2012).
However, before SB 1070 entered into force, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a claim against Arizona in federal district court seeking to stop it from going into effect. According to the DOJ’s claim, SB 1070 generally, and specifically, conflicted with federal immigration statutes. Those federal statutes were passed by Congress in accordance to its constitutional authorities to “establish a uniform rule of naturalization” and to make “all laws which are necessary and proper to” carrying out its stated authority (Arizona v. United States, 2012). Accordingly, under the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, federal immigration laws should take precedence and SB 1070 should be voided (Arizona v. United States, 2012). In other words, the DOJ argued that federal immigration laws preempted SB 1070. Conversely, Arizona argued that while Congress has the right and power to enact immigration laws, the current federal immigration regulatory framework is not so comprehensive that no state regulation was allowed. Accordingly, Arizona claimed, SB 1070 supplements and assists rather than conflicts with federal law (Arizona v. United States, 2012).
The district court agreed with the DOJ in part. According to the court while SB 1070 was not completely in conflict with federal immigration laws; Sections 2, 3,5, and 6 were. That is to say, the key law enforcement provisions of that statute were preempted, as argued by the DOJ, federal law. Subsequently, Arizona appealed the district court’s ruling to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit, however, agreed with the district court’s ruling, namely that the four, law enforcement provisions were preempted by federal law. As a result, Arizona appealed the Ninth Circuit’s decision to the Supreme Court, to seek a final determination of whether or not federal immigration law preempted SB 1070, especially Sections 2, 3, 5, and 6.
In a 5-3 decision authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Supreme Court agreed in part, and disagreed in part with the district court and Ninth Circuit’s decisions. Specifically, the Court agreed with the rulings below that Sections 3, 5, and 6 conflicted with federal law and should be voided. According to the Court: Section 3 was invalid because federal registration regulations were indeed so comprehensive that they did not leave any room for further complementary state provisions; Section 5 was invalid because Congress, in passing federal immigration legislation, made it clear that they did not want to punish undocumented migrant workers by putting them in jail; Section 6 was invalid because it would not only violate federal criminal procedural rules that generally require a warrant before a person is arrested, but more importantly would violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against “unreasonable searches and seizures.” The Court, disagreed with the rulings below, however, in regards to Section 2. According to the Court, Section 2 was a valid state law that did not conflict with federal law. Under the Court’s analysis so long as Section 2 was applied: without the presumption that the person under investigation was undocumented; without regard to the race, color or national origin and “in a manner consistent with federal law;” it is complementary to federal law.
Applying the Court’s ruling to law enforcement as a whole reveals a number of points for consideration. First, states with similar law enforcement statutes or planning similar statutes are likely to be prevented from enforcing them or them taking effect. That is to say, law enforcement authorities will no longer be able to arrest undocumented migrants who are working, nor detain hem if they cannot prove that they are here legally. Nor may the arrest a person they suspect has committed a criminal offence that could get them deported without a warrant.
There are two clear benefits of the ruling for law enforcement. First, from a macro perspective, it saves police departments from having to dedicate personnel, resources, time and funds to carry out its requirements. To be sure, those elements can be deployed or redeployed to more serious issues such as organized crime, drug trafficking, and murder. From a micro perspective, officers on the street will have three less circumstances that they need to involve themselves in. In other words, rather than be on the lookout for undocumented migrants, police officer can focus on others crimes and dangerous situations.
Conversely, there are two main disadvantages to the ruling for law enforcement. First it eliminates a valuable means for state and local police to identify, investigate and detain criminal suspects who are undocumented or criminal activity in the undocumented migrant communities. Second, it increases the possibility that undocumented migrants that are criminals or criminally inclined will be able to avoid detection and detention by state and local police.
On the other hand, the fact that the ruling certified SB 1070 Section 2 as being legal means that state and local law enforcement is not totally divested of its duties and responsibilities to further federal immigration laws. To be sure, the validity of Section 2 offers much of what law enforcement lost with the invalidation of the other three sections. However, this can only be realized through strict state-federal coordination efforts. For instance, if a state or local law enforcement agency has or is given access to federal criminal and immigration databases, such as the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) database; the checking of the immigration status of any person lawfully arrested might not only reveal their undocumented status but also their criminal history (FBI, 2016). Such information would be beneficial to state and police and law enforcement, at least n terms of setting into motion the arrests and deportations of criminal elements within the undocumented migrant communities.
References
Arizona v. United States, 567 US ___ (2012). Retrieved from http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-182b5e1.pdf
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). (2016). Uniform crime reporting. Retrieved from https://ucr.fbi.gov
Kobach, K.W. (2008). Attrition through enforcement: a rational approach to illegal immigration. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1157057
