Washington – The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld an Arizona law that harshly penalizes businesses for knowingly hire illegal immigrants.
In a ruling that could exert pressure on Congress and other states, the court — in what amounts to a 5-3 decision — declared that Arizona’s law fits within the state’s powers and does not infringe on federal turf.
“Arizona hopes that its law will result in more effective enforcement of the prohibition on employing unauthorized aliens,” Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr. wrote, adding that “the Arizona regulation does not otherwise conflict with federal law.”
The highly anticipated decision keeps intact the 2007 Legal Arizona Workers Act. Employers could have their business licenses suspended or revoked for hiring illegal immigrants, under the law.
The law also requires Arizona employers to use a federal program called E-Verify to check the immigration status of potential workers. Justices likewise upheld this provision, with Robert calling it “entirely consistent” with federal law.
The decision affirms the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which had likewise upheld the state law. It is a defeat for the politically powerful U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Obama administration, both of which had opposed the Arizona law.
“Either directly or through the uncertainty that it creates, the Arizona statute will impose additional burdens upon lawful employers,” Justice Stephen Breyer wrote in dissent.
Breyer, joined by justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, added that fearful employers may now “erect ever stronger safeguards against the hiring of unauthorized aliens, without counterbalancing protections against unlawful discrimination.”
Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas joined in the most of the majority opinion.
Justice Elena Kagan did not participate in the case, because of her prior job as the Obama administration’s solicitor general.
The decision did not involve an even more controversial immigration measure passed by Arizona lawmakers. That measure requiring police to check the immigration status of individuals in certain circumstances remains under separate legal challenge, and could likewise eventually reach the Supreme Court.
Both laws reflect Arizona’s effort to deal with the state’s share of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States. Congress has been stymied in recent years every time lawmakers try to deal comprehensively with immigration policy.
Arizona legislators explicitly cited their frustration with the federal gridlock, when they passed the 2007 law. The frustration is widely shared in other states, where legislators in 2009 introduced more than 1,500 immigration-related bills, quintuple the number introduced in 2005.
The Arizona law established a tiered set of penalties, ranging from a 10-day suspension to permanent revocation of the business license. Without a license, employers can’t do business in Arizona.
“You…essentially have the death penalty to business,” attorney Carter Phillips, representing the Chamber of Commerce, told the Supreme Court during oral argument last December.
The business group challenged the law, as part of a broad alliance that also included the Obama administration and advocacy groups including the National Council of La Raza.
From the other side, 13 states including Missouri, Kansas and South Carolina allied themselves with Arizona in citing states’ traditional authority over business licensing. The ruling Tuesday could spur these states and others from wading deeper into immigration policy; or, it might spur more creative lawmaking.
Congress prohibited the employment of illegal immigrants under the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act. The law specifically preempted states from taking civil or criminal actions against employers who hired illegal immigrants, though it left a small loophole to permit “licensing” actions. The decision Thursday relies on this provision concerning licensing.
“Arizona's licensing law falls well within the confines of the authority Congress chose to leave to the states,” Roberts wrote.
© 2011 McClatchy-Tribune Information Services
Truthout has licensed this content. It may not be reproduced by any other source and is not covered by our Creative Commons license.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.