Arizona v. United States (2012)
Background Information
Understanding the facts and constitutional questions
🔗 Connecting to Our Guiding Question
When, if ever, should the government be allowed to limit a person's constitutional rights in order to protect the community?
This case asks: Should state governments be able to limit individual rights (by enforcing immigration laws) to protect their communities from illegal immigration? Consider how this case balances states' interests in protecting their communities against the federal government's exclusive power over immigration and individual rights.
What Happened?
In 2010, Arizona passed a law called S.B. 1070 to address problems related to illegal immigration. The state was facing high costs from undocumented immigrants in education, healthcare, and law enforcement, and believed the federal government wasn't doing enough to enforce immigration laws.
The Arizona law had several provisions that made it a state crime to be an undocumented immigrant, required police to check the immigration status of anyone they stopped, and allowed employers to face penalties for hiring undocumented workers.
The federal government sued Arizona, arguing that the state law conflicted with federal immigration law. The government's position was that immigration is a federal responsibility, not a state one.
The Big Question
Can states pass their own immigration laws? Or is immigration exclusively the federal government's responsibility?
What You Need to Know
The Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) says:
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof...shall be the supreme Law of the Land...any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
This means when federal law and state law conflict, federal law wins.
The Constitution also gives the federal government power over naturalization and foreign relations. Immigration involves relationships with other countries.
Important Facts
- Arizona borders Mexico and has many undocumented immigrants
- S.B. 1070 was nicknamed the "show me your papers" law
- The federal government sued before the law took effect
- Many people worried about racial profiling of Latino Americans
- The law was very controversial and sparked nationwide protests
- Immigration has traditionally been controlled by the federal government
- Arizona argued the federal government wasn't doing enough
Vocabulary
Argument Sorting Activity
Work with your group to sort these arguments
Instructions: Read each argument below and select which side it helps from the dropdown menu. When you're finished, click "Check Answers" to see your results.
The Two Sides
Arizona
States have authority to protect their citizens. When the federal government doesn't adequately enforce immigration laws, states can step in to help. Arizona's law simply assists in enforcing existing federal law.
United States
Immigration is exclusively a federal responsibility under the Supremacy Clause. States cannot create their own immigration policies because it interferes with federal authority and creates conflicting laws across the country.
| Argument | Answer |
|---|---|
| The Constitution gives Congress the exclusive power to make immigration laws. | |
| States have always helped enforce federal laws within their borders. | |
| Federal immigration law is so complete that it leaves no room for state laws. | |
| Arizona's law only copies existing federal requirements and doesn't create new crimes. | |
| The federal government doesn't have enough resources to enforce immigration law everywhere. | |
| State immigration enforcement could interfere with America's relationships with other countries. | |
| Arizona faces special problems from illegal immigration because it borders Mexico. | |
| Different state immigration laws would create confusing and conflicting rules across the country. | |
| The Supremacy Clause makes federal law more important than conflicting state laws. | |
| States have the right to protect their borders and citizens from harm. | |
| State enforcement of immigration law could lead to racial profiling and discrimination. | |
| Federal immigration priorities focus on dangerous criminals, not all undocumented immigrants. | |
| Arizona taxpayers pay high costs for illegal immigration in schools, hospitals, and police services. |
Key Terms for Arguments
Important concepts to understand when debating this case
When federal law "takes over" an area of law, preventing states from making their own conflicting rules. If state law conflicts with federal law, the state law is "preempted" and cannot be enforced.
Connecting to Today
How these constitutional questions still matter
The tension between federal and state authority continues to shape American politics. Consider these modern examples:
Sanctuary Cities
Some cities refuse to help federal immigration enforcement, calling themselves "sanctuary cities." The federal government argues this interferes with immigration policy.
Think about: If states can't make immigration stricter, can cities make it more lenient?
Marijuana Legalization
Many states have legalized marijuana, but it remains illegal under federal law. This creates a conflict between state and federal authority similar to the Arizona case.
Think about: When state and federal law conflict, which should win? Does it depend on the issue?
Border Security
States along the border continue to argue they should have more power to enforce immigration laws. Texas has passed its own border security measures in recent years.
Think about: Should states most affected by an issue have more say in how to handle it?
Discussion Questions
- Why might the Founders have given the federal government power over immigration and foreign relations?
- What problems could arise if each state had completely different immigration rules?
- Is there a way for states to address local concerns without conflicting with federal law?
Additional Resources
Go deeper with these resources