SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Arizona Immigration Law Upheld by Supreme Court
Judges back law that penalizes firms hiring illegal immigrants despite civil rights challenge and condemnation by Obama
May 26, 2011
The US supreme court has upheld an Arizona law allowing the state to shut down businesses that hire illegal immigrants, a ruling arising from the fierce national debate on immigration policy.
The court's majority opinion, written by its chief justice, John Roberts, rejected arguments by business and civil rights groups and the Obama administration that the Arizona law conflicted with federal immigration law and must be struck down.
The supreme court's decision could spur other states and cities to adopt their own tough anti-immigration measures.
The 2007 law backed by the court is different from the strict Arizona law adopted last year and criticised by Barack Obama. It required the police to check the immigration status of anyone in the state suspected of being in the US illegally.
A federal judge and a US appeals court put the newer law's most controversial provisions on hold. Arizona has said it will appeal that ruling to the supreme court.
About 11 million illegal immigrants are believed to be in the US. Immigration has become a huge issue in states such as Arizona on the border with Mexico.
The Arizona law suspends or revokes licences to do business in the state as a penalty against employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. It requires employers to use an electronic verification system to check the work authorisation status of employees through federal records.
The Legal Arizona Workers Act was adopted after a federal immigration overhaul law ran aground in Congress in 2007. The Obama administration and Congress have been unable to agree on comprehensive immigration measures.
A US appeals court upheld the Arizona business law, and by a 5-3 vote the supreme court affirmed that ruling. "Arizona has taken the route least likely to cause tension with federal law," Roberts concluded in the 27-page opinion.
Liberal justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented and said they would hold that the Arizona law was pre-empted by federal law.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
The US supreme court has upheld an Arizona law allowing the state to shut down businesses that hire illegal immigrants, a ruling arising from the fierce national debate on immigration policy.
The court's majority opinion, written by its chief justice, John Roberts, rejected arguments by business and civil rights groups and the Obama administration that the Arizona law conflicted with federal immigration law and must be struck down.
The supreme court's decision could spur other states and cities to adopt their own tough anti-immigration measures.
The 2007 law backed by the court is different from the strict Arizona law adopted last year and criticised by Barack Obama. It required the police to check the immigration status of anyone in the state suspected of being in the US illegally.
A federal judge and a US appeals court put the newer law's most controversial provisions on hold. Arizona has said it will appeal that ruling to the supreme court.
About 11 million illegal immigrants are believed to be in the US. Immigration has become a huge issue in states such as Arizona on the border with Mexico.
The Arizona law suspends or revokes licences to do business in the state as a penalty against employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. It requires employers to use an electronic verification system to check the work authorisation status of employees through federal records.
The Legal Arizona Workers Act was adopted after a federal immigration overhaul law ran aground in Congress in 2007. The Obama administration and Congress have been unable to agree on comprehensive immigration measures.
A US appeals court upheld the Arizona business law, and by a 5-3 vote the supreme court affirmed that ruling. "Arizona has taken the route least likely to cause tension with federal law," Roberts concluded in the 27-page opinion.
Liberal justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented and said they would hold that the Arizona law was pre-empted by federal law.
The US supreme court has upheld an Arizona law allowing the state to shut down businesses that hire illegal immigrants, a ruling arising from the fierce national debate on immigration policy.
The court's majority opinion, written by its chief justice, John Roberts, rejected arguments by business and civil rights groups and the Obama administration that the Arizona law conflicted with federal immigration law and must be struck down.
The supreme court's decision could spur other states and cities to adopt their own tough anti-immigration measures.
The 2007 law backed by the court is different from the strict Arizona law adopted last year and criticised by Barack Obama. It required the police to check the immigration status of anyone in the state suspected of being in the US illegally.
A federal judge and a US appeals court put the newer law's most controversial provisions on hold. Arizona has said it will appeal that ruling to the supreme court.
About 11 million illegal immigrants are believed to be in the US. Immigration has become a huge issue in states such as Arizona on the border with Mexico.
The Arizona law suspends or revokes licences to do business in the state as a penalty against employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. It requires employers to use an electronic verification system to check the work authorisation status of employees through federal records.
The Legal Arizona Workers Act was adopted after a federal immigration overhaul law ran aground in Congress in 2007. The Obama administration and Congress have been unable to agree on comprehensive immigration measures.
A US appeals court upheld the Arizona business law, and by a 5-3 vote the supreme court affirmed that ruling. "Arizona has taken the route least likely to cause tension with federal law," Roberts concluded in the 27-page opinion.
Liberal justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented and said they would hold that the Arizona law was pre-empted by federal law.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy