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.
Key People in This Case
Passed S.B. 1070, arguing the federal government wasn't doing enough to address illegal immigration. The law required police to check immigration status during stops.
Sued Arizona before the law took effect, arguing that immigration is exclusively a federal responsibility and states cannot create their own immigration enforcement.
Signed S.B. 1070 into law in April 2010. She defended the law as necessary to protect Arizona's borders and citizens from the effects of illegal immigration.
Organizations like the ACLU opposed the law, arguing it would lead to racial profiling of Latino Americans who might be stopped simply because of how they look.
What Happened?
In April 2010, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed 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 law sparked immediate controversy. Civil rights organizations like the ACLU argued the law would lead to racial profiling of Latino Americans, who might be stopped simply because of how they looked. Protests erupted across the country.
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
- Governor Jan Brewer signed S.B. 1070 into law in April 2010
- S.B. 1070 was nicknamed the "show me your papers" law
- Civil rights groups like the ACLU opposed the law, fearing racial profiling
- The law sparked nationwide protests before it even took effect
- The federal government sued before the law took effect
- 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. Evidence: Article I, Section 8 gives Congress power over "naturalization" (how people become citizens). The Supreme Court ruled in Chy Lung v. Freeman (1875) that immigration is a federal power because it involves foreign relations — something only the national government can handle. | |
| States have always helped enforce federal laws within their borders. Evidence: State and local police help enforce federal drug laws, bank robbery laws, and kidnapping laws. Under the 287(g) program, the federal government trains local officers to enforce immigration law. Arizona argued it was just helping — not replacing — federal enforcement. | |
| Federal immigration law is so complete that it leaves no room for state laws. Evidence: The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) is over 600 pages long and covers every aspect of immigration: who can enter, how long they can stay, how to become a citizen, and what happens if they break the rules. There's no gap for states to fill. | |
| Arizona's law only copies existing federal requirements and doesn't create new crimes. Evidence: Federal law already requires non-citizens to carry registration documents. Arizona's Section 2(B) just required police to check immigration status — something federal law already allows. Arizona argued: "We're not making new crimes, just enforcing existing ones." | |
| The federal government doesn't have enough resources to enforce immigration law everywhere. Evidence: In 2010, ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) had only about 20,000 agents for the entire country. Arizona has 370 miles of border with Mexico. The federal government simply cannot patrol every mile — states can help fill the gap. | |
| State immigration enforcement could interfere with America's relationships with other countries. Evidence: Mexico's government formally protested SB 1070. If each of the 50 states had different immigration policies, foreign countries wouldn't know who to negotiate with. The Constitution gives the federal government alone power over foreign affairs. | |
| Arizona faces special problems from illegal immigration because it borders Mexico. Evidence: Arizona shares a 370-mile border with Mexico. In 2010, an estimated 460,000 undocumented immigrants lived in Arizona — about 6% of the state's population. Border states face unique challenges that states like Vermont or Maine don't experience. | |
| Different state immigration laws would create confusing and conflicting rules across the country. Evidence: If all 50 states made their own immigration rules, someone might be legal in California but illegal in Arizona. Immigrants wouldn't know which rules to follow. Justice Kennedy wrote that immigration requires "a single sovereign" — one set of rules for everyone. | |
| The Supremacy Clause makes federal law more important than conflicting state laws. Evidence: Article VI of the Constitution says federal law is "the supreme Law of the Land." When state and federal laws conflict, federal law wins. The Court used "preemption" — the legal term for when federal law takes over an area and blocks state laws. | |
| States have the right to protect their borders and citizens from harm. Evidence: The 10th Amendment reserves powers to the states. States have "police powers" to protect public safety, health, and welfare. Arizona argued that protecting citizens from crime associated with illegal border crossings is a basic state responsibility. | |
| State enforcement of immigration law could lead to racial profiling and discrimination. Evidence: Critics called SB 1070 the "show me your papers" law. The ACLU warned that police might stop people just because they "look Latino." About 30% of Arizona's population is Hispanic — many are U.S. citizens or legal residents who could be unfairly targeted. | |
| Federal immigration priorities focus on dangerous criminals, not all undocumented immigrants. Evidence: The Obama administration's policy prioritized deporting serious criminals over families and workers. Arizona's law would force deportation of everyone — even people the federal government chose not to pursue. States can't override federal enforcement priorities. | |
| Arizona taxpayers pay high costs for illegal immigration in schools, hospitals, and police services. Evidence: Studies estimated Arizona spent $1.6 billion per year on education, healthcare, and incarceration costs related to undocumented immigration. Arizona argued: if the federal government won't solve the problem, why should Arizona taxpayers pay the price? |
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.
Evidence Vault
Real sources to build your debate arguments
Complete the Argument Sort to Unlock
Finish the sorting activity above and check your answers to access real case sources.
Analyze the Sources
Read each excerpt carefully. Decide which side of the case it supports — or if it could be used by both sides.
Border Security Crisis
Border Security Crisis
Cooperative Federalism
Cooperative Federalism
State Police Powers
State Police Powers
Public Safety Concerns
Public Safety Concerns
Federal Preemption Doctrine
Federal Preemption Doctrine
Foreign Policy Interference
Foreign Policy Interference
Discrimination and Harassment
Discrimination and Harassment
Frustration of Federal Discretion
Frustration of Federal Discretion
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