Supreme Court to hear Arizona case about
illegal workers
WASHINGTON — Against the backdrop of a fierce national debate over
illegal immigration, the Supreme Court on Wednesday will hear a
challenge to an
Arizona law that revokes the licenses of companies that hire
undocumented workers.
The disputed law is not the most controversial of
new Arizona immigration measures. Earlier this year,
Republican Gov.
Jan Brewer signed a law that requires police to investigate the
status of anyone an arresting officer suspects may be in the U.S.
illegally. That law, which provoked criticism from the Obama
administration and others about potential "racial profiling," is mostly
on hold while a constitutional challenge is in lower courts.
Yet, the business case could offer clues to the
justices' views related to Arizona's broader crackdown on immigrants.
"This case may have important ramifications" for
the more controversial Arizona law known as SB 1070, observes
Georgia State University law professor Neil Kinkopf, because both
measures test the divisions between federal and state authority.
A key question is when states may act on
immigration, which has traditionally been the province of Congress.
Wednesday's case specifically tests whether the 2007 Arizona employer
penalties are overridden by U.S. provisions that "pre-empt any state or
local law imposing civil or criminal sanctions (other than through
licensing ...) upon those who employ" illegal immigrants. The question
is whether the statute is a "licensing" regulation or a broader measure
that usurps federal power.
Another element — potential discrimination —
looms in challenges to both Arizona immigration laws.
Washington lawyer Carter Phillips, who represents
the Chamber of Commerce and civil rights groups in the
employer-sanctions lawsuit, says a "reason not to allow states to
disrupt federal uniformity is the very real fear that Congress had —
that overenforcement of work authorization laws could lead to
discrimination based on national origin. If the enforcement people in
Maricopa County, for instance, are making workplace raids, you can be
pretty certain that employers are going to start limiting their hiring
to people who will not raise any suspicion."
A comprehensive immigration law overhaul has
stalled in Congress in recent years. The Senate is scheduled to take up
a narrow slice of the debate this week when it considers a bill that
would provide a way for illegal immigrants who were brought here as
children to obtain citizenship, through military service or college.
As more sweeping federal proposals have
languished, hundreds of state immigration bills have been passed in the
past five years. The Chamber of Commerce says that has generated a
patchwork of complicated and conflicting rules nationwide. The rare
alliance of business and civil rights groups that have aligned against
the Arizona law say they oppose the hiring of illegal immigrants but
insist that such regulation should be controlled uniformly by Congress,
not by individual states.
Defending their 2007 law, Arizona officials say
they simply want to make sure all workers hired by Arizona companies are
legally authorized to work in the U.S. State law requires employers to
use an otherwise optional federal verification program. That E-Verify
system collects identification and authorization data from the
Social Security Administration and
Department of Homeland Security.
State lawyers, led by Solicitor General Mary
O'Grady, who will argue the case Wednesday, tell the justices that
Arizona was responding to an increasing number of people crossing the
border illegally.
"By 2005, there were approximately 7.2 million
unauthorized workers in the United States, representing about five
percent of the labor force," O'Grady wrote in the state's brief. "And by
2007, the number of unauthorized aliens reached an estimated 11.8 to
12.5 million people."
Attorney General
Terry Goddard, who will be in the courtroom, stressed that Arizona
"feels very strongly that this was a proper exercise of state authority,
specifically provided for" under federal immigration law.
Arizona says an initial violation of the hiring
law warrants only a 10-day suspension of a business license. A second
violation can lead to permanent revocation. It asks the justices to
affirm a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit that
the law is only a licensing regulation.
Lawyer Phillips contends the statute does not
reflect "any traditional exercise of licensing authority" and imposes
sanctions more severe than under U.S. law.
|