This is what the SCOTUS just said this morning as part of their decision to strike down all the critical parts of Arizona's SB1070.
The Supremacy Clause gives Congress the power to preempt state law.
Slam Dunk. Case Closed.
Yet somehow Gov. Brewer managed to dribble out this statement in response.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) touted today’s Supreme Court decision invalidating some but not all parts of SB 1070, a controversial immigration law, as a “victory for the rule of law.”
“It is also a victory for the 10th Amendment and all Americans who believe in the inherent right and responsibility of states to defend their citizens,” Brewer said in a press release. “After more than two years of legal challenges, the heart of SB 1070 can now be implemented in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.”
Spit Take!
It's a Victory for What!? Wipes Coffee off the laptop screen.
Sometimes I really do think that Republicans live in a parallel dimension of Zombie Apocalypse Bizarro World that sits in the same space, but is completely different from what the rest of us call - um, uh - Reality.
This wasn't a close decision. Justice Kagan recused herself as she had been Solictor General when this suit was filed, so she was in concert with the DOJ who filed the suit in the first place. Even without her vote, the the result was 5-3 with only wingbat trio of Thomas, Alito and Scalia dissenting.
This is the two level criterion that the 5 prevailing SCOTUS justices used for determining how power is divided between State and Federal Law.
First, States are precluded from regulating conduct in a field that Congress has determinedmust be regulated by its exclusive governance. See Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Assn., 505 U. S. 88, 115. Intent can be inferred from a framework of regulation “so pervasive . . . that Congress left no room for the States to supplement it” or where a “federal interest is so dominant that the federal system will be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject.” Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U. S. 218, 230. Second, state laws are preempted when they conflict with federal law, including when theystand “as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52, 67. Pp. 7–8.
Under SB1070, the Federal Crime of crossing our borders without a Passport or Visa was being made into the
State Crime of Trespassing. This has now been overturned.
I can see Republicans on the air declaring victory despite the massive fanny smack their nutbag 10ther ideas just received from the SCOTUS. They are already proclaiming that the SCOTUS upheld the "Papers Please" section of the law which allows police to stop anyone at anytime and demand they prove their immigration status.
It did not.
By authorizing state and local officers to make warrantless arrests of certain aliens suspected of being removable, §6 too creates an obstacle to federal law. As a general rule, it is not a crime for aremovable alien to remain in the United States. The federal scheme instructs when it is appropriate to arrest an alien during the removal process. The Attorney General in some circumstances will issue awarrant for trained federal immigration officers to execute. If no federal warrant has been issued, these officers have more limited authority. They may arrest an alien for being “in the United States inviolation of any [immigration] law or regulation,” for example, but only where the alien “is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained.” §1357(a)(2). Section 6 attempts to provide state officers with even greater arrest authority, which they could exercise with no instruction from the Federal Government. This is not the system Congress created. Federal law specifies limited circumstances in which state officers may perform an immigration officer’s functions.
State Officers can not,
Not,
NOT enforce Federal Law. It's not their job. The only thing that the SCOTUS upheld was the ability of State Officers to
coordinate with Federal Authorities in confirming the immigration status of persons they may arrest and detain lawfully,
not just anyone they run into on the street.
It is not clear at this stage and on this record that §2(B), in practice, will require state officers to delay the release of detainees for no reason other than to verify their immigration status. This would raise constitutional concerns. And it would disrupt the federal framework to put state officers in the position of holding aliens in custody for possible unlawful presence without federal direction and supervision. But §2(B) could be read to avoid these concerns. If the law only requires state officers to conduct a status check during the course of an authorized, lawful detention or after a detainee has been released, the provision would likely survive preemption—at least absent some showing that it has other consequences that are adverse to federal law and its objectives.
Although they technically left this §2(B) portion in effect, they very specifically
limited how and where it could be implemented without being constitutionally problematic, taking a scalpel to the law and effective re-writing it.
Very simply - "Papers Please" is struck down. The only thing that survives is the authority call the feds to confirm the status of someone in custody - but not to HOLD THEM in custody pending determination of that status - which is a power and a responsibility that the States already had.
So basically, in my admitted non-lawyerly opinion the difference between now and before SB1070 was originally passed is - Nothing. Which is why Jan Brewer's little Snoopy Dance of Victory following this decision is all the more weird, and in fact, disturbing.
Vyan