This paper examines the Supreme Court's decision in Arizona v. United States, which dealt with an Arizona state law (S.B. 1070) regarding immigration enforcement. The federal government argued the law intruded on its powers over immigration. The Supreme Court upheld one part of the law allowing immigration status checks during arrests but struck down other parts, finding immigration enforcement is largely a federal responsibility. The ruling established that states cannot pass laws that interfere with or circumvent federal immigration statutes.

1. Arizona v. United States, 567 U. S. _ (2012)
Robby Colbert
Saint Leo University
July 14, 2014
Abstract
This paper will be a brief examination of the United States
Supreme Court’s decision in Arizona v. United States. The case
before the Supreme Court deals with a state law passed by
Arizona which the federal government has asserted intrudes on
the federal government’s powers concerning immigration and
the enforcement of immigration statutes.
Key words: Arrest, border, immigration.
In 2010 Arizona passed a law, S. B. 1070, which was intended
to address the numerous concerns dealing with what they
perceived as the apparent disregard of the federal government to
deal with ongoing problems created by illegal immigrants in
their state. The federal government filed a suit to block the
enforcement of this statute asserting that it usurped the
authority granted by congress to the federal government alone.
The bill was signed into law by Governor Jan Brewer and was
scheduled to go into effect on July 29, 2010. According to an
article in the US News and World Report the law was the
strictest anti-immigration law in the country.
The law was challenged in lower court and an injunction was
issued prohibiting the enforcement of four parts of the law:
state law officers determining immigration status during any
lawful stop; the requirement to carry alien registration
documents; the prohibition on applying for work if
unauthorized; and permission for warrantless arrests if there is

2. probable cause the offense would make the person is removable
from the United States. (Morse, 2011) Arizona appealed and
the case was heard by the 9
th
U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals on November 1, 2010. The
Appellate Court issued their ruling on April 11, 2011 and
upheld the injunction thereby paving the way for the case to be
heard by the U. S. Supreme Court. Oral arguments were held
before the U. S. Supreme Court and the Court upheld three of
the injunctions and overturned the fourth.
The first portion of the law that was found to be
unconstitutional was the issue dealing with Section 3 of Arizona
S. B. 1070. This section of the law made it a crime punishable
as a misdemeanor for a person to fail to carry valid immigration
papers with them. Arizona argued that this portion of their law
was the same as an existing federal law which also required
immigrants to carry their immigration paperwork with them.
The U. S. Supreme Court ruled against Arizona saying that the
federal government alone has the power to decide what
identification immigrants must carry. The Supreme Court also
advised that even if the state law was identical to the federal
law it was still invalid. The Supreme Court stated that this was
a moot point since the state laws penalties were harsher than
those contained in federal law.
The next portion of the law was section 5(C) of S. B. 1070.
This section of the law, which did not have a federal
counterpart, would have made a crime for an undocumented
worker to obtain a job or even to apply for a job in Arizona.
The Court ruled that the federal government had already taken
steps to deal with employment issues when congress had passed
a law which required employers to verify the immigration status
of workers. This section was also ruled unconstitutional.
Section 6 of S. B. 1070 would have allowed the law
enforcement officers of Arizona to arrest an undocumented
alien, without a warrant, if there is probable cause to believe
that they have committed a crime which would justify their

3. deportation. The Court found that this too was the sole purview
of the federal government and that the states did not have the
authority to deport anyone.
The final portion of S. B. 1070 was upheld by the U. S.
Supreme Court. Section 2(B) would permit law enforcement
officers of Arizona to make inquiries into the immigration
status of persons they had arrested. This is something that is
already permitted under current federal law and is encouraged
by congress for all local and state law enforcement agencies.
(Howe, 2012)
While section 2(B) was upheld, it is unclear if it will survive
further scrutiny by the court system if it causes those arrested to
be held longer than they normally would or if causes
unnecessary delays in releasing someone on bail. The Supreme
Court decided that they would not overturn it until the state
courts of Arizona had a chance to rule on it and since there was
no showing that it was in conflict with federal statutes.
The ruling in this case clearly establishes that the local and
state law enforcement agencies cannot interfere with and
attempt to evade federal law and the enforcement of federal
statutes by writing their own laws. There are certain powers
and authorities that are reserved by the federal government that
cannot be usurped by states.
The future implication for law enforcement is that they must
seek to find solutions with issues that are not just local, but are
state and sometimes national issues. In the ever polarized world
of national politics where it is difficult to get some of our
elected officials to talk rationally, it will be increasingly
difficult to deal with these types of issues. What usually has to
happen is a tragic event that causes wide spread disgust and
anger at the state of affairs as the currently exist. Until the
elected officials can put politics aside and do what is right for
the country we will continue to have gridlock and will be
dealing with more of these issues on a local level.

4. Conclusion
The issues raised by Arizona are nothing new. States,
especially those on or near the border, have been complaining
for many years about the inability or the indifference of the
federal government to tackle the illegal immigration problems
in the United States. Arizona attempted to take the bull by the
horns and to enact state laws to combat the problem.
Unfortunately the Supreme Court has ruled that there are certain
things that fall under the purview of the federal government
alone. This includes immigration.
One of the key points that has been lost in the on-going
hyperbole over immigration is that no one is disputing the fact
that our country is one founded by and with immigrants. The
concern is not immigration, but the illegal immigration and the
strain that it imposes on federal, state, and local agencies.
Social services, schools, jails, and prisons are some of the
institutions that deal with this on a constant basis. It stretches
the already thin budgets of many places.
There are no easy answers and it will require compromise and
hard work on the part of our legislators to find a solution.
References
Unites States Supreme Court (2012). Arizona et al v. United
States, 567 US __ (2012)
Arizona Senate (2010).
Support our law enforcement and safe neighborhoods act
. Senate Bill 1070, Section 8, Cooperation and assistance in the
enforcement of immigration laws.
Howe, A. (2012).

5. S.B. 1070: In Plain English
. Retrieved on July 15, 2014 from
http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/06/s-b-1070-in-plain-english/
Morse, A. (2011). National Council of State Legislators.
Retrieved on July 15, 2014 from
http://www.ncsl.org/research/immigration/analysis-of-arizonas-
immigration-law.aspx
Swanson, C. R., Territo, L., and Taylor, R. W. (2012).
Police administration: structures, processes and behaviors
(8
th
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson