You are on page 1of 22

IMMIGRATION

POLICY
CENTER

SPECIAL REPORT

A M E R I C A N I M M I G R AT I O N CO U N C I L

Q&A GUIDE TO
ARIZONA V. UNITED STATES
WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT
THE SUPREME COURT CASE
OVER SB 1070

By Ben Winograd

APRIL 2012

Q&A GUIDE TO ARIZONA V. UNITED STATES


WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE SUPREME COURT CASE OVER SB 1070

BY BEN WINOGRAD

APRIL 2012

ABOUT SPECIAL REPORTS ON IMMIGRATION


TheImmigrationPolicyCentersSpecialReportsareourmostindepthpublication,providingdetailedanalysesofspecial
topicsinU.S.immigrationpolicy.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR


Ben Winograd is a Staff Attorney at the American Immigration Council. He focuses on legal issues related to the
enforcementofimmigrationlaw,includingtherightsofrespondentsinremovalproceedingsandfederalcollaboration
withstateandlocalgovernments.HereceivedhisJ.D.cumlaudefromGeorgetownLawin2010.Heworkedasareporter
beforeandduringlawschool,andhaswrittenfortheAssociatedPress,SCOTUSblog,andTheWallStreetJournal.Healso
workedasafreelancejournalistinArizonacoveringborderandimmigrationissues.Mr.Winogradisadmittedtopractice
lawinCalifornia;hispracticeislimitedtocasesinfederalcourtsandbeforetheimmigrationagencies.

ABOUT THE IMMIGRATION POLICY CENTER


TheImmigrationPolicyCenter,establishedin2003,isthepolicyarmoftheAmericanImmigrationCouncil.IPC'smission
is to shape a rational conversation on immigration and immigrant integration. Through its research and analysis, IPC
provides policymakers, the media, and the general public with accurate information about the role of immigrants and
immigration policy on U.S. society. IPC reports and materials are widely disseminated and relied upon by press and
policymakers.IPCstaffregularlyservesasexpertstoleadersonCapitolHill,opinionmakers,andthemedia.IPCisanon
partisanorganizationthatneithersupportsnoropposesanypoliticalpartyorcandidateforoffice.Visitourwebsiteat
www.immigrationpolicy.organdourblogatwww.immigrationimpact.com.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
THE BASICS
Q: WhydoIneedthisguide?...............................................................................................................................1
Q: WhatisSB1070?.............................................................................................................................................1
Q: HowdidthesuitagainstArizonareachtheSupremeCourt? .........................................................................1
Q: WhywerepartsofSB1070blockedbeforeeventakingeffect? ....................................................................2
Q: WhenwillthecasebearguedanddecidedbytheSupremeCourt? ..............................................................2
Q: WhowillarguethecaseattheSupremeCourt?.............................................................................................2
Q: WhydidJusticeKaganrecuseherselffromthecase? ....................................................................................2
Q: WhatoutsidepartiesaresupportingandopposingArizona?.........................................................................2
Q: WhydidtheObamaadministrationsueArizonabutnotstatesthathavepolicieslimitinginformation
sharingbetweenstateandlocalpoliceandfederalimmigrationagencies? ..................................................3
THE DETAILS
Q: WhydidtheSupremeCourtagreetohearthecase? .....................................................................................4
Q: Whatispreemption? ...................................................................................................................................4
Q: Fromalegalperspective,doesitmatterthatArizonaisalongtheborder?...................................................4
Q: WhichprovisionsofSB1070willtheSupremeCourtconsider? ....................................................................4
Q: WhataretheargumentsforandagainsttheprovisionstheSupremeCourtwillconsider? ..........................5
Presumptionfororagainstpreemption ..................................................................................................5
Inherentauthoritytoarrestviolatorsoffederalimmigrationlaw .......................................................6
Section2(B)(reasonablesuspicionandinvestigationofimmigrationstatus)......................................6
Section3(criminalizingfailuretoobtainorcarryregistrationpapers) ................................................7
Section5(C)(criminalizingworkingandsolicitationofwork) ..................................................................7
Section6(authorizingwarrantlessarrestforcommissionofremovableoffenses) .............................8
Q: DoestheSupremeCourthavetoreachthesameconclusionforeachcontestedprovision?........................8
THE POTENTIAL AFTERMATH
Q: WhatwillhappeniftheJusticesareevenlydivided?......................................................................................9
Q: WhatwillhappeniftheSupremeCourtrulesagainstArizona? .....................................................................9
Q: WhatwillhappeniftheSupremeCourtrulesforArizona? ............................................................................9
EffectonArizona ......................................................................................................................................9
EffectonotherStates...............................................................................................................................9
Q: WillCongressbeabletooverridetheSupremeCourtsdecision? ...............................................................10
Q: IftheSupremeCourtreversestheinjunctionagainstSB1070,shouldotherstatesenactsimilarlaws? ....10

APPENDIX ....................................................................................................................................................................12

THE BASICS
Q: WhydoIneedthisguide?
TheSupremeCourtwillsoonhearargumentsinArizonav.UnitedStates,adisputeoverthe
legalityoftheimmigrationlawknownasSB1070.Morethananymatterinrecenthistory,
thecaseinvolvesarangeofimportantquestionsregardingtherolethatstatesmayplayin
theenforcementoffederalimmigrationlaw.TheCourtsdecisionwilllikelyaffectnotonly
thefutureofSB1070,butthefateofotherstateimmigrationlawsbeingchallengedincourt
andtheoddsofsimilarlawsbeingpassedaroundthecountry.

This guide provides brief answers to common questions about Arizona v. United States,
including how the litigation began, what the contested provisions do and do not say, and
whatargumentshavebeenraisedbyeachside.AstheSupremeCourtconsidersthecase,
knowingthefactsandlegalargumentswillprovecriticallyimportantinfurtheringarational
discussionabouttheimplicationsoftheCourtsdecision.

Q: WhatisSB1070?
SB 1070 is the legislative name of the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe
Neighborhoods Act, an immigration enforcement law enacted by the state of Arizona in
April2010. 1 Accordingtothestatementoflegislativeintent,thelawwasdesignedtomake
attritionthroughenforcementtheofficialpolicyofallstateandlocalagenciesinArizona.
Attrition through enforcement is a strategy promoted by individuals and organizations
including Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach and the Federation for American
Immigration Reform (FAIR)who believe that aggressive enforcement of the immigration
laws will make life so difficult for unauthorized immigrants that they will choose to self
deport. Following the passage of SB 1070, numerous other statesincluding Alabama,
Georgia,Indiana,SouthCarolina,andUtahpassedlegislationwithsimilarprovisions. 2

Q: HowdidthesuitagainstArizonareachtheSupremeCourt?
SoonafterArizonaGov.JanBrewersignedSB1070intolaw,theObamaadministrationfiled
suitallegingitsprovisionscouldnotbeenforcedbecausetheywereinconsistentwithand
werethereforepreemptedbyfederalimmigrationlaw.(Seepage4foramoredetailed
discussion of the legal theory of preemption.) In July 2010, a federal district judge in
Phoenix entered a preliminary injunction against four of the laws provisions while
permitting others to go into effect. 3 The following April, a federal appeals court in San
Franciscoupheldtheinjunction, 4 causingArizonatofileapetitionwiththeSupremeCourt.
TheCourtgrantedthepetitiononDecember9,2011.

The legality of SB 1070 has also been challenged by numerous private plaintiffs and
organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Immigration
LawCenter.Thosecasesremainpendingbeforethelowercourts,however,andthemerits
oftheprivatepartiessuitsarenotbeforetheSupremeCourt.

Q&A Guide to Arizona v. United States

Immigration Policy Center 1

Q: WhywerepartsofSB1070blockedbeforeeventakingeffect?
Whenastatepassesalaw,privatepartiesand/orthefederalgovernmentmaysueincourt
to prevent it from being enforced. To preserve the status quo while the case is pending,
judges may issue a preliminary injunction that temporarily halts enforcement of the law
until a final ruling is made. Obtaining a preliminary injunction is very difficult, however,
becauseplaintiffsmustshowthattheyarelikelytoprevailonthemeritsandthattheywill
sufferirreversibleharmifthelawtakeseffect.IntheObamaadministrationssuitagainstSB
1070,adistrictjudgeinPhoenixpreliminarilyenjoinedfourprovisionsbutallowedothersto
gointoeffect.

Q: WhenwillthecasebearguedanddecidedbytheSupremeCourt?
Oral arguments before the Supreme Court will take place on Wednesday, April 25, 2012.
The Supreme Court does not announce in advance when a decision will be issued, but
customarilyreleasesallopinionsbytheendofJune.Becausethecasewillbethelastargued
during the current term, a ruling is unlikely to be issued before late Juneunless the
Justicesdivide44,inwhichcasetheoutcomewillbeannouncedwithindaysofthevote.

Q: WhowillarguethecaseattheSupremeCourt?
ArizonawillargueinfavorofSB1070andtheUnitedStateswillargueagainstit.Arizonawill
be represented by Paul Clement, an attorney in private practice who served as Solicitor
General of the United States during the most recent Bush administration. Clement, who
clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia after finishing law school, has argued 56 times at the
SupremeCourt.TheUnitedStateswillberepresentedbyDonaldVerrilli,Jr.,whosucceeded
ElenaKaganasSolicitorGeneralafterherappointmenttotheSupremeCourt.Verrilli,who
clerked for Justice William Brennan after finishing law school, has argued 19 times at the
Court.

Q: WhydidJusticeKaganrecuseherselffromthecase?
WhentheSupremeCourtannounceditwouldhearthecase,itrevealedthatJusticeKagan
wouldnottakepartinthedecision.Whilenospecificreasonwasgiven,itisfairtoassume
she participated in internal discussions about the lawsuit while serving in the Obama
administration.

Q: WhatoutsidepartiesaresupportingandopposingArizona?
In addition to briefs from the parties themselves, the Supreme Court frequently receives
amicus(friendofthecourt)briefsfromoutsideindividualsandorganizationswishingto
share their views of the case. Those who filed briefs supporting Arizonas position on SB
1070 include 16 states and 56 Republican members of Congress. Those who filed briefs
opposing Arizonas position include 11 states; 68 Democratic members of Congress; two
CommissionersoftheformerImmigrationandNaturalizationService;threeformerCabinet

Q&A Guide to Arizona v. United States

Immigration Policy Center 2

members; 17 foreign countries; and more than 40 U.S. cities and counties. A list of all
outsidepartieswhojoinedanamicusbriefisintheappendix.

Q: Why did the Obama administration sue Arizona but not states that have policies
limiting information sharing between state and local police and federal immigration
agencies?
TheObamaadministrationsuedArizonabecauseitbelievedtheprovisionsofSB1070were
inconsistentwithfederallaw,andbecausetheSupremeCourthaspreviouslystruckdown
similar state measures. The administration has not brought suit against any socalled
sanctuary cities because community policing policies that forbid questioning individuals
abouttheirimmigrationstatusdonotviolatefederallaw. 5 Infact,theSupremeCourthas
specifically held that the Constitution forbids the federal government from requiring
municipalitiestoassistintheenforcementoffederallaw. 6

Q&A Guide to Arizona v. United States

Immigration Policy Center 3

THE DETAILS
Q: WhydidtheSupremeCourtagreetohearthecase?
TheSupremeCourtreceivesthousandsofpetitionseveryyear,butdoesnotexplainwhyit
accepts thefew cases itdecides to hear. According to Supreme Court rules,however, the
Justicesagreetohearcasesinonlytwocircumstances:(1)wherethedecisionunderreview
conflictswiththatofotherappellatecourtsorapriordecisionoftheSupremeCourt,or(2)
where the decision under review involves an important question of federal law that has
notbeen,butshouldbe,settledby[theSupreme]Court. 7 InthecaseofSB1070,partof
the Ninth Circuits decision was alleged to conflict with that of another federal court. In
addition,theSupremeCourtmayhaveagreedtoreviewthecaseduetotheimportanceof
theissuesinvolvedandtheamountoflitigationstemmingfromcopycatlegislationinother
states.

Q: Whatispreemption?
Preemption is the legal principle whereby federal laws take precedence over conflicting
state laws. It is why states cannot pass less stringent environmental protections than the
federal government, or set a minimum wage below that established by Congress. The
concept of preemption comes from the Constitution, which says that federal statutes are
the supreme law of the land. 8 However, simply because a state law is preempted by
federallawdoesnotmeanitviolatestheConstitutionitself.Itsimplymeansthatitconflicts
with existing federal statutes, which Congress may subsequently change. As presented to
the Supreme Court, the question in Arizona v. United States is not whether various
provisions of SB 1070 violate the Constitution, but whether they are preempted by
existingfederalimmigrationlaws.

Q: Fromalegalperspective,doesitmatterthatArizonaisalongtheborder?
No. Some have argued that Arizona should have greater leeway to enact immigration
related measures by virtue of its status as a border state. In fact, an amicus brief filed in
supportofArizonasaysthestatehasbeenlegallyinvadedbyMexicanimmigrantsandis
thereforeauthorizedundertheConstitutiontowagewaragainstthem. 9 However,Arizonas
statusasaborderstateisnotlegallyrelevanttothecase.ThequestionfacingtheSupreme
CourtisnotwhetherArizonaalonecanenactalawlikeSB1070,butwhetheranystatecan
enact such a law. Though the problems facing Arizona are important from a policy
perspective,theyarenotrelevanttothepreemptionanalysis.

Q: WhichprovisionsofSB1070willtheSupremeCourtconsider?
The Supreme Court will not rule on the entirety of SB 1070; it will only consider the
provisionsofSB1070temporarilyenjoinedbythefederaldistrictcourtinPhoenix.

Q&A Guide to Arizona v. United States

Immigration Policy Center 4

Section 2(B) requires state and local police officers to attempt to determine the
immigration status of any person stopped under state or local law if reasonable
suspicion exists that the person is unlawfully present in the United States. (Note:
reasonable suspicion means having a valid reason to suspect unlawful activity, but
not enough evidence to make an arrest.) This section also requires state and local
authorities to determine the immigration status of any person placed under arrest,
regardlessofwhetherthepersonissuspectedofbeinginthecountryunlawfully.

Section 3 makes it a crime under Arizona law for unauthorized immigrants to violate
theprovisionsoffederallawrequiringthemtoapplyforregistrationwiththefederal
governmentandtocarryaregistrationcardifonehasbeenissuedtothem.Violations
ofthisprovisionarepunishablebyupto20daysinjailforafirstviolationand30days
injailforsubsequentviolations.

Section5(C)makesitacrimeunderArizonalawforimmigrantswhoarenotauthorized
toworkintheUnitedStatestoapplyforwork,solicitworkinapublicplace,orperform
workwithinthestatesborders.Thetermsolicitmeansanyformofcommunication,
includingagestureornod,indicatingthatapersoniswillingtobeemployed.Violations
ofthisprovisionarepunishablebyuptosixmonthsinjailanda$2,500fine.

Section 6 authorizes state and local police officers to arrest immigrants without a
warrant where probable cause exists that they committed a public offense making
themremovablefromtheUnitedStates.(Note:probablecausemeanshavingenough
evidence of unlawful activity to obtain a warrant or make an arrest.) Under the
provision,Arizonalawenforcementofficersmayarrestlawfullypresentimmigrantsfor
crimes committed outside the state, or for crimes for which they were previously
incarcerated,ifthecommissionofsuchacrimeisgroundsfordeportation.

Q: What are the arguments for and against the provisions the Supreme Court will
consider?
Both sides agree that the outcome of the case depends upon whether the contested
provisionsofSB1070arepreemptedbyfederallaw.Thepartiesdisagree,however,over
twoimportantpreliminaryissuesinvolvingwhichsideshouldbeartheburdenofproof.In
addition,thepartiesoffercompetinginterpretationsofthefederalimmigrationlawsalleged
topreemptthefourcontestedprovisions.

Presumptionfororagainstpreemption
Before determining whether the enjoined provisions of SB 1070 are preempted, the
Courtwillneedtodeterminewhichpartybearstheburdenofproof.IftheCourtapplies
a presumption against preemption, the United States bears the burden of
demonstrating that Congress has specifically prohibited states from enforcing each of
the four contested provisions. By contrast, if the Court applies a presumption for
preemption,ArizonamustshowthatCongressaffirmativelypermittedstatestoenforce
suchlaws.Thispreliminaryissueisveryimportantandcoulddeterminetheultimate

Q&A Guide to Arizona v. United States

Immigration Policy Center 5

outcome of the casebecause the party bearing the burden of proof must point to
specificfederallawsthatexpresslysupportitsposition.

Arizona asks the Court to apply apresumptionagainst preemption, as courts typically


doinpreemptioncases,arguingthatthereisnoimmigrationexceptiontothegeneral
rulesofpreemption. 10 Bycontrast,theUnitedStatesarguesthatbecauseimmigration
is an area of law traditionally reserved for the federal government, the Court should
presumetheenjoinedprovisionsofSB1070arepreempted.

Inherentauthoritytoarrestviolatorsoffederalimmigrationlaw
The second preliminary issue is whether states have inherent authority to arrest
personssolelyonsuspicionthattheyhaveviolatedfederalimmigrationlaws.Thisissue
is also important becauseas with the presumption for or against preemptionthe
party that loses this issue bears the burden of identifying a specific federal law
affirmativelysupportingitsposition.

Arizonaarguesthatstateofficershaveinherentauthoritytoarrestpersonssuspected
of violating all federal laws, including civil immigration laws, unless Congress directly
forbidsthemfromdoingso.Again,theUnitedStatesarguesthatbecauseimmigration
hashistoricallybeenanareaofexclusivefederalresponsibility,statelawenforcement
officersmaynotmakeimmigrationarrestsunlessspecificallyauthorizedbyCongressor
incooperationwithfederalofficials.

Section2(B)(reasonablesuspicionandinvestigationofimmigrationstatus)
Arizonaarguesthat,farfrompreemptingSection2(B),federallawencouragesstateand
local police to investigate the status of suspected unauthorized immigrants. As
evidence,thestatepointstofederalstatuteswhichallowstatestocooperatewiththe
federal government in the identification of unlawfully present noncitizens; 11 which
requirethefederalgovernmenttorespondtostaterequeststoverifyorascertainthe
immigration status of individuals they encounter; 12 and which say that states cannot
prohibit their own employees from exchanging information with federal immigration
authorities. 13 In light of these federal provisions, Arizona argues that Section 2(B) is
consistent with the intent of Congress, i.e., to encourage state and local law
enforcement officers to investigate the status of suspected unauthorized immigrants
theyencounter.

The United States argues that by permitting local law enforcement agents to
cooperatewiththefederalgovernment,Congressauthorizedthemtoenforcefederal
immigration lawbut only so long as they follow the instructions and priorities of
federalimmigrationofficials.Thegovernmentarguesthatbyrequiringlocalofficersto
initiate immigration investigations of all suspected unauthorized immigrants they stop
orarrest,SB1070willdisruptthefederalgovernmentsfocusonnoncitizensconvicted
ofcriminaloffenses,forcingthegovernmenttoexpendresourcesoncasesthathavenot
beendesignatedasapriority.TheUnitedStatesalsoarguesthatSection2(B)willresult

Q&A Guide to Arizona v. United States

Immigration Policy Center 6

intheunnecessarydetentionofimmigrantswithpermissiontobeintheUnitedStates,
whichcouldinturncreatesignificantforeignpolicyconsequences.

In an amicus brief, the ACLU and other immigrants rights organizations disagree with
both Arizona and the United States. The organizations argue that local officers may
enforce federal immigration laws only in limited situations specifically authorized by
Congress,suchasunderaformal287(g)agreemententeredwiththeDepartmentof
Homeland Security. Outside of these situations, the organizations argue that local
officersmaynotenforcefederalimmigrationlawevenwhentheiractionsareconsistent
withfederalpriorities. 14

Section3(criminalizingfailuretoobtainorcarryregistrationpapers)
Arizonaarguesthatstatespossessgeneralauthoritytoprohibitthesameconductthatis
forbidden by Congress, so long as the state statute mirrors federal law. Arizona
maintainsthatSection3appliestothesameconductforbiddenbyCongressandshould
not be preempted because it tracks federal law in all material respects. 15 The state
notesthatSB1070smaximumpenaltyforviolationsofSection3donotexceedthoseof
thefederalprovisionsitattemptstomirror.

TheUnitedStatesarguesthattheregistrationofimmigrantsintheUnitedStatesisan
areainwhichCongressleftnoroomforstatelegislationwhatsoever.Thegovernment
furtherarguesthatSection3effectivelymakesunlawfulpresenceintheUnitedStatesa
criminaloffense,whereasfederallawimposesonlycivilpenalties(i.e.deportation)for
residinginthecountrywithoutauthorization.TheUnitedStatesalsonotesthatunlike
federallaw,whichpermitsviolatorstoreceiveprobationorasuspendedsentence,SB
1070requiresconvictedimmigrantstoreceivejailtime.

Section5(C)(criminalizingworkingandsolicitationofwork)
Arizona argues that unlike immigrationrelated matters, states have long had the
authority to regulate issues regarding employers and employees. Arizona also argues
that whereas Congress restricted the type of sanctions that states may levy against
employers of unauthorized workers, Congress has not said anything about the type of
penaltiesthatstatesmayimposeonunauthorizedworkersthemselves.Finally,Arizona
argues that subjecting unauthorized workers to state criminal punishment will further
lawmakersgoalofreducingunauthorizedemployment.

The United States argues that Congress deliberately rejected proposals to impose
criminal penalties on unauthorized workers, deciding instead to impose only civil
penalties (i.e. deportation). Under federal law, the United States notes that
unauthorizedworkersmayfacecriminalpenaltiesonlyforengagingindocumentfraud
orotherdeceptivepractices.TheUnitedStatesalsoarguesthatunauthorizedworkers
may be penalized under federal law only for accepting employment, not soliciting
employment.

Q&A Guide to Arizona v. United States

Immigration Policy Center 7

Section6(authorizingwarrantlessarrestforcommissionofremovableoffenses)
As previously noted, Arizona argues that state and local police officershave inherent
authority to arrest people solely on suspicion that they are present in violation of
federal immigration law. Arizona also argues that Congress has explicitly authorized
states to cooperate with the federal government in the apprehension of unlawfully
present noncitizens. 16 Finally, Arizona argues that because Section 6 does not require
state and local officers to make arrests, a determination of whether the provision is
preempted by federal law cannot be made until law enforcement officers actually
exercisesuchauthority.

TheUnitedStatesarguesthatSection6likeSection2(B)permitslocalofficerstotake
actionagainstsuspectedimmigrationviolatorswithouthavingtocooperatewiththe
federal government. The United States also argues that Section 6 authorizes local
officerstoarrestimmigrantswithpermissiontostayinthecountry,suchasthosewho
aresubjecttoremovalbutwhoselifeorfreedomwouldbethreatenedinthecountryof
deportation.TheUnitedStatesalsonotesthatlocalofficerscouldhavegreatdifficulty
determining whether a prior criminal conviction is grounds for deportation, because
most removable offenses under federal immigration law fall under broadly defined
categorieslikecrimesinvolvingmoralturpitude.

Q: Does the Supreme Court have to reach the same conclusion for each contested
provision?
No.TheSupremeCourtmayfindsome,none,orallofthefourprovisionstobepreempted
underfederallaw.

Q&A Guide to Arizona v. United States

Immigration Policy Center 8

THE POTENTIAL AFTERMATH


Q: WhatwillhappeniftheCourtisevenlydivided?
BecauseJusticeKaganwillnotparticipateinthedecision,theeightremainingJusticescould
dividetheirvotesevenly,44.Inthatcase,theNinthCircuitsdecision willautomaticallybe
upheld,butnoopinionwillbeissuedmeaningthedecisionwillnotcreateprecedentor
be binding on lower courts. The preliminary injunction would remain in place and lower
courts would continue to determine the validity of SB 1070 copycat laws unless and until
theSupremeCourtagreestoreviewadifferentcase.Intheeventofanequallydividedvote,
theCourtwouldnotannouncehowtheindividualJusticesvoted.

Q: WhatwillhappeniftheSupremeCourtrulesagainstArizona?
IftheCourtupholdspartorallofthepreliminaryinjunction(inotherwords,rulesagainstall
orpartsofSB1070),theenjoinedprovisionswillcontinuetobepreventedfromgoinginto
effect. The case would go back to the district court in Phoenix to issue a permanent
injunction. It is possible that the Arizona legislature could pass modifications to SB1070,
however, in which case the district court would have to evaluate the validity of the
modificationsinlightoftheSupremeCourtsopinion.

Q: WhatwillhappeniftheSupremeCourtrulesforArizona?
EffectonArizona
If the Court finds federal law not to preempt any or all of the provisions, the preliminary
injunctionwillbeliftedandthelegalchallengetothoseprovisionswillbeeffectivelyover.
Importantly, however, even if the Court allows the contested provisions to go into effect,
future litigants may still challenge how the law is applied on a casebycase basis. For
example, even if Arizona law enforcement officers have the authority to investigate the
immigration status of foreign nationals they stop in public, persons who are excessively
detainedduringsuchinvestigationsmaybringindividualchallengestothemannerinwhich
thatauthorityisexercised.

In addition, a Supreme Court ruling in favor of Arizona would not forestall existing
challenges to SB 1070 by private individuals and organizations. These separate challenges
involveissuesandargumentsnotbeforetheSupremeCourtinArizonav.UnitedStates.In
February, for example, the district judge overseeing the case brought by immigrants and
civilrightsorganizationsenteredapreliminaryinjunctionagainstseparateprovisionsofSB
1070thatcriminalizetheprocessbywhichmanydaylaborersarehired. 17

EffectonotherStates
The effect of the Courts ruling on other states with copycat lawsincluding Alabama,
Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina, and Utahwill depend on the scope of the decision. If
provisionsofSB1070arefoundtobepreemptedunderfederallaw,identicalprovisionsof

Q&A Guide to Arizona v. United States

Immigration Policy Center 9

other state laws will also be prevented from going into effect. However, copycat laws in
other states contain provisions that are not before the Supreme Court in this case. For
example, the decision will not definitively resolve the legality of theprovision ofAlabama
HB 56 that requires school administrators to ascertain the immigration status of newly
enrollingstudents.

Q: WillCongressbeabletooverridetheSupremeCourtsdecision?
ItdependsonthebasisoftheCourtsdecision.Thequestionunderconsiderationiswhether
the four enjoined provisions are preempted under federal law, not whether they are
prohibitedbytheConstitutionitself.IftheCourtsrulingislimitedtothevalidityofSB1070
underexistingfederallaw,CongresswillbefreetooverridetheCourtsdecisionbyenacting
anewlaworamendingtherelevantfederalprovision(s).

The ruling could differ from most preemption decisions, however, because the Court may
findthattheConstitutionplacesindependentlimitsonstatesauthoritytomakeorenforce
immigrationrelated measures. Thus, if the Courts ruling is based on constitutional
groundsfinding, forexample, that laws like SB 1070 are prohibitedeven when Congress
has authorized them, or that states cannot force the President to accept unwanted
assistanceCongress would be powerless to override the decision without adopting a
constitutionalamendment.

Q: IftheSupremeCourtreversestheinjunctionagainstSB1070,willotherstatesbefree
toenactsimilarlaws?
ThequestionofwhetherstatesmayenactlawslikeSB1070isdistinctfromwhetherstates
should enact such laws. Regardless of the outcome of the Supreme Courts decision,
supportersofstateantiimmigrationlawswillbefreetopromotevariationsonSB1070that
avoidwhateverlegaldeterminationstheSupremeCourtmayreach.Theconsequencesfor
states, however, are likely to be costly at many levels if they continue to pursue anti
immigrant legislation. Opponents of state immigration enforcement laws believe they
cruellyseparatefamilies,devastatelocaleconomies,andplaceunnecessaryburdensonU.S.
citizens and lawful immigrants. They believe the attrition through enforcement strategy
does nothing to address our national immigration problems and places unprecedented
legal,fiscal,andeconomicburdensonstatesandlocalcommunities.Formoreinformation
onthecostsandconsequencesofSB1070andsimilarlaws,seeIPCsQ&AGuidetoState
Immigration Laws: What you Need to Know if Your State is Considering AntiImmigrant
Legislation.

Q&A Guide to Arizona v. United States

Immigration Policy Center 10

End Notes

ThefulltitleofthelawistheSupportOurLawEnforcementandSafeNeighborhoodsAct.FollowingthepassageofSB
1070,theArizonaLegislatureenactedafollowupmeasure(HB2162)amendingsomeofitsprovisions.
2
Formoreinformationonimmigrationenforcementlawsinotherstates,seetheImmigrationPolicyCenterSpecialReport,
AQ&AGuidetoStateImmigrationLaws(UpdatedFebruary2011).
3
UnitedStatesv.Arizona,703F.Supp.2d980(D.Ariz.2010)
4
UnitedStatesv.Arizona,641F.3d339(9thCir.2011).
5
LynnTramonte,DebunkingtheMythofSanctuaryCities,ImmigrationPolicyCenterSpecialReport(April2011).
6
Printzv.UnitedStates,521U.S.898(1997).
7
SupremeCourtRule10.
8
U.S.Constitution,ArticleVI.
9
AmicusBriefofU.S.BorderControletal.at2122.
10
BriefofArizonaat26.
11
8U.S.C.1357(g)(10).
12
8U.S.C.1373.
13
8U.S.C.1644.
14
BriefofACLUetal.at9.
15
BriefofArizonaat52.
16
8U.S.C.1357(g)(10).
17
FriendlyHousev.Whiting,No.101061(D.Ariz),orderofFebruary29,2012.

Q&A Guide to Arizona v. United States

Immigration Policy Center 11

APPENDIX

In addition to briefs from the parties themselves, the Supreme Court frequently receives amicus
(friend of the court) briefs from outside individuals and organizations discussing the larger policy and
legalimplicationsofthecase.InArizonav.UnitedStates,theSupremeCourtreceived40suchbriefs.A
listofalloutsidepartieslistedontheamicusbriefsisbelow.

OutsidePartiesSupportingSB1070

OutsidePartiesOpposingSB1070

States

States

Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Indiana
Kansas
Louisiana
Michigan
Nebraska
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
SouthCarolina
SouthDakota
Virginia
WestVirginia
Wyoming

California
Connecticut
Hawaii
Illinois
Iowa
Maryland
Massachusetts
NewYork
Oregon
RhodeIsland
Vermont

U.S.Representatives
AlGreen(DTX)
AlbioSires(DNJ)
AnnaEshoo(DCA)
BarbaraLee(DCA)
BennieThompson(DMS)
BobFilner(DCA)
BobbyRush(DIL)
CarolynMaloney(DNY)
ChakaFattah(DPA)
CharlesGonzalez(DTX)
CharlesRangel(DNY)
ChrisVanHollen(DMD)
DannyDavis(DIL)
DonnaChristensen(DVI)
EdPastor(DAZ)
EdolphusTowns(DNY)
EleanorHolmesNorton(DDC)
ElijahCummings(DMD)
EmanuelCleaver(DMO)
FredericaWilson(DFL)
GaryAckerman(DNY)
GeneGreen(DTX)
GeorgeMiller(DCA)
GraceNapolitano(DCA)
GregoryMeeks(DNY)
GwenMoore(DWI)
HankJohnson(DGA)
HansenClarke(DMI)
HowardBerman(DCA)

StateLegislatures
Arizona

U.S.Senators
DavidVitter(RLA)
JimDeMint(RSC)

U.S.Representatives
AdamKinzinger(RIL)
AlanNunnelee(RMS)
BenQuayle(RAZ)
BillFlores(RTX)
BlaineLuetkemeyer(RMO)
BrianBilbray(RCA)
DanBurton(RIN)
DanaRohrabacher(RCA)
DavidSchweikert(RWA)
DennisRoss(RFL)
DianeBlack(RTN)
DonManzullo(RIL)
DougLamborn(RCO)
DuncanHunter(RCA)
CliffStearns(RFL)
EdRoyce(RCA)
EdWhitfield(RKY)
Appendix

ImmigrationPolicyCenter12

OutsidePartiesSupportingSB1070

OutsidePartiesOpposingSB1070

JamesLankford(ROK)
JeanSchmidt(ROH)
JeffLandry(RLA)
JeffMiller(RFL)
JimJordan(ROH)
JoePitts(RPA)
JohnCulberson(RTX)
JohnDuncan(RTN)
JohnFleming(RLA)
JohnKline(RMN)
KenCalvert(RCA)
KennyMarchant(RTX)
LamarSmith(RTX)
LynnJenkins(RKS)
LynnWestmoreland(RGA)
MarshaBlackburn(RTN)
MichaelBurgess(RTX)
MicheleBachman(RMN)
MikeKelly(RPA)
MikePompeo(RKS)
MoBrooks(RAL)
PaulBroun(RGA)
PaulGosar(RAZ)
PhilGingrey(RGA)
PhilRoe(RTN)
RalphHall(RTX)
RandyForbes(RVA)
RobWoodall(RGA)
RobertAderholt(RAL)
RobertLatta(ROH)
ScottGarrett(RNJ)
SteveKing(RIA)
SueMyrick(RNC)
TedPoe(RTX)
TimMurphy(RPA)
TomMcClintock(RCA)
TrentFranks(RAZ)
VirginiaFoxx(RNC)
WallyHerger(RCA)
WalterJones(RNC)

JamesClyburn(DSC)
JanSchakowsky(DIL)
JaniceHahn(DCA)
JaredPolis(DCO)
JerroldNadler(DNY)
JesseJackson,Jr.(DIL)
JimMcDermott(DWA)
JimMoran(DVA)
JoeBaca(DCA)
JohnConyers(DMI)
JohnLarson(DCT)
JohnLewis(DGA)
JosSerrano(DNY)
JudyChu(DCA)
KeithEllison(DMN)
LauraRichardson(DCA)
LindaSnchez(DCA)
LorettaSanchez(DCA)
LouiseSlaughter(DNY)
LucilleRoybalAllard(DCA)
LuisGutirrez(DIL)
MauriceHinchey(DNY)
MaxineWaters(DCA)
MikeHonda(DCA)
MikeQuigley(DIL)
NancyPelosi(DCA)
NydiaVelzquez(DNY)
PedroPierluisi(DPR)
RalGrijalva(DAZ)
RubnHinojosa(DTX)
SamFarr(DCA)
SheilaJacksonLee(DTX)
SilvestreReyes(DTX)
StenyHoyer(DMD)
TedDeutch(DFL)
TerriSewell(DAL)
XavierBecerra(DCA)
YvetteClarke(DNY)
ZoeLofgren(DCA)

StateLegislators

Argentina
Bolivia
Brazil
Chile
Colombia
CostaRica
DominicanRepublic
Ecuador
ElSalvador
Guatemala
Honduras
Nicaragua

ForeignCountries

Assw.AlisonLittellMcHose(RNJ)
Assm.GaryR.Chiusano(RNJ)
Del.BobMarshall(RVA)
Del.DonDwyer(RMD)
Del.JohnOverington(RWV)
Del.NicKipke(RMD)
Del.PatMcDonough(RMD)
Del.WalterDuke(RWV)
Rep.BeckyCurrie(RMS)
Rep.CharlesKey(ROK)
Rep.CourtneyCombs(ROH)
Appendix

ImmigrationPolicyCenter13

OutsidePartiesSupportingSB1070

OutsidePartiesOpposingSB1070

Rep.DarylMetcalfe(RPA)
Rep.DaveAgema(RMI)
Rep.DavidHoward(RMT)
Rep.EricKoch(RIN)
Rep.GeorgeCleveland(RNC)
Rep.JohnKavanagh(RAZ)
Rep.JonHubbard(RAR)
Rep.JordanUlery(RNH)
Rep.LarryRappaport(RNH)
Rep.MattShea(RWA)
Rep.RandyTerrill(ROK)
Rep.SallyKern(ROK)
Rep.WendyWarburton(RMT)
Sen.CharlieJanssen(NE)
Sen.JackMurphy(RGA)
Sen.KitJennings(RWY)
Sen.LoriKlein(RAZ)
Sen.MarcCote(DRI)
Sen.MikeDelph(RIN)
Sen.ScottBeason(RAL)
Sen.SteveOroho(RNJ)
Sen.TedHarvey(RCO)

Panama
Paraguay
Peru
UnitedMexicanStates
Uruguay

LawEnforcementOfficials

SheriffJoeArpaio(MaricopaCounty,AZ)
SheriffLarryDever(CochiseCounty,AZ)

ChiefArtAcevedo(Austin,TX)
ChiefArturoVenegas,Jr.(Sacramento,CA)(former)
ChiefCharlieBeck(LosAngeles,CA)
ChiefChrisBurbank(SaltLakeCity,UT)
ChiefJackHarris(Phoenix,AZ)(retired)
ChiefJeffHadley(Kalamazoo,MI)
ChiefJeffreyW.Halstead(FortWorth,TX)
ChiefNobleWray(Madison,WI)
ChiefRickJones(LosRios,CA)
ChiefRobertoVillaseor(Tucson,AZ)
ChiefRonaldDavis(EastPaloAlto,CA)
ChiefSergioDiaz(Riverside,CA)
ChiefTimothyDolan(Minneapolis,MN)
DirectorEduardoGonzalez,U.S.MarshallService
(Retired)
DistrictAttorneyGeorgeGascn(SanFrancisco,CA)
SheriffClarenceW.Dupnik(PimaCounty,AZ)
SheriffLeroyD.Baca(LosAngeles,CA)
SheriffRichardWiles(ElPaso,TX)

NongovernmentalOrganizations

FormerINSCommissioners

AlliedEducationalFoundation
AmericanCivilRightsUnion
AmericanUnityLegalDefenseFund
CenterforConstitutionalJurisprudence
CenterforSecurityPolicy
CommitteeforJustice
CommitteetoProtectAmericasBorder
ConservativeLegalDefenseandEducationFund
EagleForumEducation&LegalDefenseFund
EnglishFirst
EnglishFirstFoundation
FreedomWatch
GunOwnersofAmerica,Inc.
GunOwnersFoundation
IndividualRightsFoundation
InstituteontheConstitution
LandmarkLegalFoundation
LibertyLegalFoundation
LincolnInstituteforResearchandEducation
MinutemanCivilDefenseCorps
MountainStatesLegalFoundation
PolicyAnalysisCenter
SecureStatesInitiative
StateLegislatorsforLegalImmigration
ThomasMoreLawCenter

DorisMeissner(19932000)
JamesZiglar(20012003)

LawEnforcementOfficials

Appendix

FormerCabinetOfficers
MadeleineK.Albright(SecretaryofState,19972001;
U.N.Ambassador,19931997)
JohnD.Negroponte(U.N.Ambassador20012004)
WilliamS.Cohen(SecretaryofDefense,19972001)

FormerStateDepartmentandDefenseOfficials
ConradK.Harper(LegalAdvisor,StateDepartment,
19931996)
DavisR.Robinson(LegalAdvisor,StateDepartment,
19811985)
DonaldL.Kerrick(DeputyNationalSecurityAdvisor,
20002001)
JohnD.Negroponte(DeputySecretary,State
Department,20072009)
LawrenceJ.Korb(AssistantSecretary,Defense
Department,20012005)
RudolphF.Deleon(DeputySecretary,Defense
Department,20002001)
WilliamH.TaftIV(LegalAdvisor,StateDepartment,
20012005;DeputyNationalSecurityAdvisor,1987
1989)

ImmigrationPolicyCenter14

OutsidePartiesSupportingSB1070

OutsidePartiesOpposingSB1070

U.S.BorderControl
U.S.BorderControlFoundation
WashingtonLegalFoundation

Cities
Austin,Texas
Baltimore,Maryland
Beaverton,Oregon
Berkeley,California
Boston,Massachusetts
Bridgeport,Connecticut
Carrboro,NorthCarolina
ChapelHill,NorthCarolina
Charleston,SouthCarolina
Cincinnati,Ohio
Columbia,SouthCarolina
Durham,NorthCarolina
Flagstaff,Arizona
Gainesville,Florida
HallandaleBeach,Florida
Laredo,Texas
LosAngeles,California
Madison,Wisconsin
MiamiBeach,Florida
Minneapolis,Minnesota
NewHaven,Connecticut
NewYork,NewYork
Oakland,California
Omaha,Nebraska
PaloAlto,California
Phoenix,Arizona(Mayor)
Portland,Oregon
Providence,RhodeIsland
SaintPaul,Minnesota
SaltLakeCity,Utah
SanFrancisco,California
SanJose,California
SanLeandro,California
SanLuis,Arizona
Seattle,Washington
Tualatin,Oregon
Tucson,Arizona
Washington,D.C.

Other
LawrenceJ.Joyce
RussellPearce(formerArizonastatesenatorand
legislativesponsorofSB1070)

Counties
Dallas,Texas
Monterey,California
Multnomah,Oregon
SanFrancisco,California
SanMateo,California
SantaClara,California

AttorneysGeneral(former)
GrantWoods(RArizona)
TerryGoddard(DArizona)
RobertAbrams(NewYork)
BruceBabbitt(DArizona)
Appendix

ImmigrationPolicyCenter15

OutsidePartiesSupportingSB1070

OutsidePartiesOpposingSB1070
WilliamJ.Baxley(DAlabama)
RichardH.Bryan(DNevada)
RobertA.Butterworth(DFlorida)
BonnieCampbell(DIowa)
PamelaCarter(DIndiana)
SteveClark(DArkansas)
J.JosephCurran,Jr.(DMaryland)
FrankieSueDelPapa(DNevada)
RobertJ.DelTufo(DNewJersey)
JamesDoyle(DWisconsin)
W.A.DrewEdmondson(DOklahoma)
LeeFisher(DOhio)
DavidB.Frohnmayer(ROregon)
JanGraham(DUtah)
JenniferGranholm(DMichigan)
ScottHarshbarger(DMassachusetts)
PeterHarvey(DNewJersey)
AndrewKetterer(DMaine)
G.OliverKoppell(DNewYork)
PegLautenschlager(DWisconsin)
PatrickC.Lynch(DRhodeIsland)
J.D.MacFarlane(DColorado)
PatriciaMadrid(DNewMexico)
JanetT.Mills(DMaine)
JeffreyA.Modisett(DIndiana)
MikeMoore(DMississippi)
HardyMyers(DOregon)
EdwinPittman(DMississippi)
DennisJ.RobertsII(DRhodeIsland)
SteveRowe(DMaine)
SteveSix(DKansas)
GregoryH.Smith(NewHampshire)
RobertSpagnoletti(DDistrictofColumbia)
RobertStephan(RKansas)
MarySueTerry(DVirginia)
AnthonyF.Troy(DVirginia)
JamesTierney(DMaine)
R.PaulVanDam(DUtah)
JohnVandeKamp(DCalifornia)
MarkWhite(DTexas)

NongovernmentalOrganizations
9to5,NationalAssociationofWorkingWomen
AdorersoftheBloodofChrist,U.S.Region
AdrianDominicanSisters
AfricanAmericanMinistersinAction
AlabamaAppleseedCenterforLaw&Justice
AllianceforaJustSociety
AmericanBarAssociation
AmericanCivilLibertiesUnion
AmericanCivilLibertiesUnionofArizona
AmericanFederationofLaborandCongressof
IndustrialOrganizations
Appendix

ImmigrationPolicyCenter16

OutsidePartiesSupportingSB1070

OutsidePartiesOpposingSB1070
AmericanGIForum
AmericanImmigrationLawyersAssociation
AmericanJewishCommittee
AmericanSubcontractorsAssociationofArizona
ArizonaAttorneysforCriminalJustice
ArizonaEmployersforImmigrationReform
ArizonaHispanicChamberofCommerce
ArizonaSouthAsiansForSafeFamilies
Asian&PacificIslanderAmericanHealthForum
AsianAmericanInstitute
AsianAmericanJusticeCenter
AsianChamberofCommerceofArizona
AsianLawCaucus
AsianPacificAmericanLaborAlliance,AFLCIO
AsianPacificAmericanLegalCenter
AssociationoftheBaroftheCityofNewYork
Bickel&BrewerLatinoInstituteforHumanRights
BorderActionNetwork
CenterforCommunityChange
CenterforGender&RefugeeStudies
CentroCivicoMexicano
ChangetoWin
ChurchWorldService
CoalitionforHumaneImmigrantRightsofLosAngeles
CoalitionofUtahProgressives
CongregationofSistersofSt.Agnes
CongregationofSt.Joseph
CongregationoftheSistersofCharityofSaintVincent
dePaulofNewYork
ConstitutionalAccountabilityCenter
ConventoftheSistersofSaintJosephofChestnutHill,
Philadelphia
DaughtersofCharityofSt.VincentdePaul,Provinceof
St.Louise
DaughtersofCharityofSt.VincentdePaul,Provinceof
theWest
Dmos
DerechosHumanos
DominicanSistersofPeace
DominicanSistersofSt.CatherinedeRicci
DominicanSisters,GrandRapids,MI
EqualJusticeSociety
Esperanza
EvangelicalLutheranChurchinAmerica
FairImmigrationReformMovement
FarmworkerJustice
FranciscanActionNetwork
GeorgiaLatinoAllianceforHumanRights
GreaterHoustonPartnership
GreyNunsoftheSacredHeart
HebrewImmigrantAidSociety
Hill&Usher,L.L.C.
HispanicInterestCoalitionofAlabama

Appendix

ImmigrationPolicyCenter17

OutsidePartiesSupportingSB1070

OutsidePartiesOpposingSB1070
HispanicNationalBarAssociation
HolyCrossMinistries
ImmigrationEquality
InternationalBrotherhoodofTeamsters
JapaneseAmericanCitizensLeague
JewishLaborCommittee
LambdaLegalDefenseandEducationFund
LamdaLegalDefenseandEducationFund
LeadershipConferenceofWomenReligious
LeadershipConferenceonCivilandHumanRights
LeagueofUnitedLatinAmericanCitizens(LULAC)
LeagueofWomenVotersofUtah
LegalMomentum
LosAbogadosHispanicBarAssociation
LowcountryImmigrationCoalition
LutheranImmigration&RefugeeService
MainStreetAlliance
MajorCitiesChiefsPoliceAssociation
MaketheRoadNewYork
MexicanAmericanLegalDefenseandEducational
Fund
MuslimPublicAffairsCouncil
NationalAdvocacyCenteroftheSistersoftheGood
Shepherd
NationalAsianPacificAmericanBarAssociation
NationalAssociationofColoredWomensClubs
NationalAssociationofCriminalDefenseLawyers
NationalAssociationofHumanRightsWorkers
NationalAssociationofLatinoElectedandAppointed
Officials
NationalCoalitionforAsianPacificAmerican
CommunityDevelopment
NationalCongressofAmericanIndians
NationalCouncilofJewishWomen
NationalCouncilofLaRaza
NationalDayLaborOrganizingNetwork
NationalEmploymentLawProject
NationalFairHousingAlliance
NationalImmigrationJusticeCenter
NationalImmigrationLawCenter
NationalImmigrationProjectoftheNationalLawyers
Guild
NationalKoreanAmericanService&Education
Consortium
NationalLatinaInstituteforReproductiveHealth
NationalLatinoEvangelicalCoalition
NationalLatinoPeaceOfficersAssociation
NationalLeagueofCities
NationalOrganizationforWomenFoundation
NationalTonganAmericanSociety
NETWORKACatholicSocialJusticeLobby
NewYorkImmigrationCoalition
OCA

Appendix

ImmigrationPolicyCenter18

OutsidePartiesSupportingSB1070

OutsidePartiesOpposingSB1070
PinerosyCampesinosUnidosdelNoroeste
PoliceExecutiveResearchForum
PublicAdvocates
Refugee&ImmigrationMinistries,DisciplesHome
Missions,ChristianChurch(DisciplesofChrist)
ReligiousSistersofCharity
RightsWorkingGroup
RutherfordInstitute
SchoolSistersofNotreDame,CentralPacificProvince
ServiceEmployeesInternationalUnion
SikhAmericanLegalDefenseandEducationFund
SinsinawaDominicanSisters
SistersofCharityofCincinnati
SistersofCharityofLeavenworth
SistersofCharityofNazareth
SistersofCharityofOurLadyofMercy
SistersofCharityofSaintElizabeth
SistersofCharityofSetonHill,Greensburg,PA
SistersofCharityoftheBlessedVirginMary
SistersofMercyoftheAmericas
SistersofNotreDamedeNamur,USA
SistersofSt.FrancisofDubuque,Iowa
SistersofSt.FrancisofPenanceandCharity
SistersofSt.JosephofRochester,NY
SistersofSt.JosephofSpringfield,MA
SistersoftheDivineCompassion
SistersoftheHolyCross
Sojourners
SomosAmerica
SouthAsianAmericansLeadingTogether
SouthCarolinaAppleseedLegalJusticeCenter
SoutheastAsiaResourceActionCenter
SouthernCenterforHumanRights
SouthernPovertyLawCenter
SouthsidePresbyterianChurch
SouthwestConferenceoftheUnitedChurchofChrist
TheConferenceofMajorSuperiorsofMen
UnitedChurchofChrist,JusticeandWitnessMinistries
UnitedFarmWorkersofAmerica
UnitedFoodandCommercialWorkersInternational
Union
UnitedStatesConferenceofCatholicBishops
UnitedStatesConferenceofMayors
UnitedStatesHispanicChamberofCommerce
UtahCoalitionofLaRaza
ValledelSol

Other
PlaintiffsinFriendlyHousev.Whiting

Appendix

ImmigrationPolicyCenter19

You might also like