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
The supreme court has upheld an Arizona law allowing the state to punish firms that hire illegal immigrants. Photograph: David Kadlubowski/Corbis
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, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. 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. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - 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.