IMMIGRATION

POLICY
CENTER

SPECIAL REPORT

A M E R I C A N I M M I G R AT I O N CO U N C I L

Q&A GUIDE TO

ARIZONA V. UNITED STATES

HOW THE SUPREME COURT RULED
ON SB 1070 AND WHAT IT MEANS
FOR OTHER STATES

By Ben Winograd

UPDATED JULY 2012

Q&A GUIDE TO ARIZONA V. UNITED STATES

HOW THE SUPREME COURT RULED ON SB 1070 AND WHAT IT MEANS FOR OTHER STATES

BY BEN WINOGRAD

UPDATED JULY 2012

ABOUT SPECIAL REPORTS ON IMMIGRATION

TheImmigrationPolicyCentersSpecialReportsareourmostindepthpublication,providingdetailedanalysesofspecial
topicsinU.S.immigrationpolicy.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Ben Winograd is a Staff Attorney at the American Immigration Council. He focuses on legal issues related to the
enforcementofimmigrationlaw,includingtherightsofrespondentsinremovalproceedingsandfederalcollaboration
withstateandlocalgovernments.HereceivedhisJ.D.cumlaudefromGeorgetownLawin2010.Heworkedasareporter
beforeandduringlawschool,andhaswrittenfortheAssociatedPress,SCOTUSblog,andTheWallStreetJournal.Healso
workedasafreelancejournalistinArizonacoveringborderandimmigrationissues.Mr.Winogradisadmittedtopractice
lawinCalifornia;hispracticeislimitedtocasesinfederalcourtsandimmigrationagencies.

ABOUT THE IMMIGRATION POLICY CENTER

TheImmigrationPolicyCenter,establishedin2003,isthepolicyarmoftheAmericanImmigrationCouncil.IPC'smission
is to shape a rational conversation on immigration and immigrant integration. Through its research and analysis, IPC
provides policymakers, the media, and the general public with accurate information about the role of immigrants and
immigration policy on U.S. society. IPC reports and materials are widely disseminated and relied upon by press and
policymakers.IPCstaffregularlyservesasexpertstoleadersonCapitolHill,opinionmakers,andthemedia.IPCisanon
partisanorganizationthatneithersupportsnoropposesanypoliticalpartyorcandidateforoffice.Visitourwebsiteat
www.immigrationpolicy.organdourblogatwww.immigrationimpact.com.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
THE BASICS .......................................................................................................................................... 1
Q:

WhydoIneedthisguide? ............................................................................................................ 1

Q:

WhatisSB1070? .......................................................................................................................... 1

Q:

HowdidthesuitagainstArizonareachtheSupremeCourt? ...................................................... 1

Q:

WhenwasthecasearguedanddecidedbytheSupremeCourt? ............................................... 2

Q:

WhoarguedthecaseattheSupremeCourt? .............................................................................. 2

Q:

WhydidJusticeKaganrecuseherselffromthecase?.................................................................. 2

Q:

WhatoutsidepartiessupportedandopposedArizona?.............................................................. 2

Q:

WhydidtheObamaadministrationsueArizonabutnotstatesthathavepolicieslimiting
informationsharingbetweenstateandlocalpoliceandfederalimmigrationagencies? ........... 2

THE DECISION ...................................................................................................................................... 3

Q:

WhatwastheissuebeforetheSupremeCourt? ......................................................................... 3

Q:

WhichprovisionsofSB1070didtheSupremeCourtconsider? .................................................. 3

Q:

WhichprovisionsofSB1070didtheSupremeCourtstrikedown,andwhy? ............................. 3

Q:

WhichprovisionofSB1070didtheSupremeCourtnotstrikedown,andwhy? ........................ 4

Q:

WhatdidtheSupremeCourtsayaboutimmigrationandprosecutorialdiscretion? .................. 5

Q:

WhatdidtheSupremeCourtsayaboutimmigrationandforeignrelations?.............................. 5

Q:

WhatdidtheSupremeCourtsayaboutimmigrationreform? .................................................... 6

THE AFTERMATH .................................................................................................................................. 6

Q:

WhichsidewonArizonav.UnitedStates?................................................................................ 6

Q:

WhatisthestatusofSB1070inArizona?.................................................................................... 6

Q:

IfSection2(B)takeseffect,willitbeimmunefromfuturelegalchallenges?.............................. 7

Q:

HowwilltheSupremeCourtsrulingaffectotherstateandlocalimmigrationlaws?................. 7

Q:

CouldCongressoverridetheSupremeCourtsdecision? ............................................................ 7

THE BASICS
Q: WhydoIneedthisguide?
On June 25, 2012, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Arizona v. United States, a
dispute over four provisions of the immigration law known as SB 1070. More than any
matterinrecenthistory,thecasesettledarangeofimportantquestionsregardingtherole
that states may play in the enforcement of federal immigration law. The Courts decision
willaffectnotonlythefutureofSB1070,butthefateofotherstateimmigrationlawsbeing
challengedincourtandtheoddsofsimilarlawsbeingpassedaroundthecountry.

This guide provides brief answers to common questions about Arizona v. United States,
including how the litigation began, what the contested provisions do and do not say, and
howtheSupremeCourtdecidedthecase.Asdebatesovertherulingcontinue,knowingthe
basisfortheCourtsopinionwillprovecriticallyimportantinfurtheringarationaldiscussion
abouttheimplicationsoftheCourtsdecision.

Q: WhatisSB1070?
SB 1070 is the legislative name of the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe
Neighborhoods Act, an immigration enforcement law enacted by the state of Arizona in
April2010. 1 Accordingtothestatementoflegislativeintent,thelawwasdesignedtomake
attritionthroughenforcementtheofficialpolicyofallstateandlocalagenciesinArizona.
Attrition through enforcement is a strategy promoted by individuals and organizations
including Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach and the Federation for American
Immigration Reform (FAIR)who believe that aggressive enforcement of the immigration
laws will make life so difficult for unauthorized immigrants that they will choose to self
deport. Following the passage of SB 1070, numerous other statesincluding Alabama,
Georgia,Indiana,SouthCarolina,andUtahpassedlegislationwithsimilarprovisions. 2

Q: HowdidthesuitagainstArizonareachtheSupremeCourt?
SoonafterArizonaGov.JanBrewersignedSB1070intolaw,theObamaadministrationfiled
suitallegingitsprovisionswereinconsistentwithandthereforepreemptedbyfederal
immigration law. (See page 3 for a more detailed discussion of the legal theory of
preemption.) In July 2010, a federal district judge in Phoenix entered a preliminary
injunctionagainstfourofthelawsprovisionswhilepermittingotherstogointoeffect. 3 The
following April, a federal appeals court in San Francisco upheldthe injunction, 4
causingArizonatofileapetitionwiththeSupremeCourt.

The legality of SB 1070 has also been challenged by numerous private plaintiffs and
organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Immigration
LawCenter.Thosecasesremainpendingbeforethelowercourts,however,andthemerits
oftheprivatepartiessuitswerenotbeforetheSupremeCourt.

Q&A Guide to Arizona v. United States

Immigration Policy Center 1

Q: WhenwasthecasearguedanddecidedbytheSupremeCourt?
OralargumentsbeforetheSupremeCourttookplaceonApril25,2012.TheCourtissuedits
decisiononJune25,2012.

Q: WhoarguedthecaseattheSupremeCourt?
Arizona argued in favor of SB 1070 and the United States argued against it. Arizona was
represented by Paul Clement, an attorney in private practice who served as Solicitor
GeneraloftheUnitedStatesduringthemostrecentBushadministration.TheUnitedStates
was represented by Donald Verrilli, Jr., who succeeded Elena Kagan as Solicitor General
afterherappointmenttotheSupremeCourt.

Q: WhydidJusticeKaganrecuseherselffromthecase?
WhentheSupremeCourtannounceditwouldhearthecase,itrevealedthatJusticeKagan
wouldnottakepartinthedecision.Whilenospecificreasonwasgiven,itisfairtoassume
she participated in internal discussions about the lawsuit while serving in the Obama
administration.

Q: WhatoutsidepartiessupportedandopposedArizona?
In addition to briefs from the parties themselves, the Supreme Court frequently receives
amicus(friendofthecourt)briefsfromoutsideindividualsandorganizationswishingto
share their views of the case. Those who filed briefs supporting Arizonas position on SB
1070 include 16 states and 56 Republican members of Congress. Those who filed briefs
opposing Arizonas position include 11 states; 68 Democratic members of Congress; two
CommissionersoftheformerImmigrationandNaturalizationService;threeformerCabinet
members;17foreigncountries;andmorethan40U.S.citiesandcounties.

Q: Why did the Obama administration sue Arizona but not states that have policies
limiting information sharing between state and local police and federal immigration
agencies?
TheObamaadministrationsuedArizonabecauseitbelievedtheprovisionsofSB1070were
inconsistentwithfederallaw,andbecausetheSupremeCourthadpreviouslystruckdown
similar state measures. The administration has not brought suit against any socalled
sanctuary cities because community policing policies that forbid questioning individuals
abouttheirimmigrationstatusdonotviolatefederallaw. 5 Infact,theSupremeCourthas
specifically held that the Constitution forbids the federal government from requiring
municipalitiestoassistintheenforcementoffederallaw. 6

Q&A Guide to Arizona v. United States

Immigration Policy Center 2

THE DECISION
Q: WhatwastheissuebeforetheSupremeCourt?
The issue before the Supreme Court was whether four provisions of SB 1070 were
preempted by federal law and should therefore be prevented from taking effect.
Preemption is the legal principle whereby federal laws take precedence over conflicting
state laws. It is why states cannot pass less stringent environmental protections than the
federal government, or set a minimum wage below that established by Congress. The
concept of preemption comes from the Constitution, which says that federal statutes are
thesupremelawoftheland. 7

However, simply because a state law is preempted by federal law does not mean it
violates the Constitution itself. It simply means that it conflicts with existing federal
statutes,whichCongressmaysubsequentlychange.AspresentedtotheSupremeCourt,the
questioninArizonav.UnitedStateswasnotwhethervariousprovisionsofSB1070violated
theConstitution,butwhethertheywerepreemptedbyexistingfederalimmigrationlaws.

Q: WhichprovisionsofSB1070didtheSupremeCourtconsider?
The Supreme Court did not rule on the entirety of SB 1070; it only considered four
provisions of SB 1070 that were initially enjoined by the federal district court in Phoenix:
Section2(B),Section3,Section5,andSection6.

Q: WhichprovisionsofSB1070didtheSupremeCourtstrikedown,andwhy?
TheSupremeCourtfoundSection3,Section5(C),andSection6ofSB1070preemptedby
federallaw,therebyallowingthepreliminaryinjunctionstobecomepermanent.

Section 3 would have made it a crime under Arizona law for unauthorized immigrants to
violate the provisions of federal law requiring them to apply for registration with the
federalgovernmentandtocarryaregistrationcardifonehasbeenissuedtothem.Inother
words, it would have created an additional state penalty for the commission of a federal
offense.Violationsofthisprovisionwouldhavebeenpunishablebyupto20daysinjailfor
afirstviolationand30daysinjailforsubsequentviolations.

TheCourtfoundSection3preemptedbecausetheregisteringofimmigrantsintheUnited
StatesisanareaoflawthatCongresshasentrustedentirelytothefederalgovernment.(In
legal terms, the Court said the federal government has occupied the field.) 8 The Court
alsosaidthatifArizonacouldenforceSection3,itcouldprosecuteimmigrantsevenwhere
federalofficialsdeterminethatinitiatingchargeswouldfrustratefederalpriorities. 9

Section 5(C) would have made it a crime under Arizona law for immigrants who are not
authorizedtoworkintheUnitedStatestoapplyforwork,solicitworkinapublicplace,or
performworkwithinthestatesborders.Thetermsolicitwouldhaveincludedanyform

Q&A Guide to Arizona v. United States

Immigration Policy Center 3

of communication indicating that a person is willing to be employed. Violations of this

provisionwouldhavebeenpunishablebyuptosixmonthsinjailanda$2,500fine.

TheCourtfoundSection5(C)preemptedbecausewhenCongresspassedlegislationbarring
employersfromhiringunauthorizedimmigrantworkers,lawmakersspecificallydeclinedto
impose criminal penalties on employees themselves. Thus, as the Court found, making
criminals out of aliens engaged in unauthorized workaliens who already face the
possibility of employer exploitation because of their removable statuswould be
inconsistentwithfederalpolicyandobjectives. 10

Section6wouldhaveauthorizedstateandlocalpoliceofficerstoarrestimmigrantswithout
a warrant where probable cause existed that they committed a public offense making
them removable from the United States. (Note: probable cause means having enough
evidenceofunlawfulactivitytoobtainawarrantormakeanarrest.)Undertheprovision,
Arizona law enforcement officers would have been able to arrest lawfully present
immigrants for crimes committed outside the state, or for crimes for which they were
previouslyincarcerated,ifthecommissionofsuchacrimewasgroundsfordeportation.

The Court found Section 6 preempted because it would have given Arizona police more
power to arrest immigrants than is possessed by federal immigration officers, who must
generallyobtainawarrantbeforemakinganarrest.TheCourtalsofoundthatCongressset
forth limited circumstances in which local police may perform the functions of federal
immigration officerssuch as when they are deputized under a 287(g) agreement.
Otherwise,theCourtheldthatlocalpolicecannotunilaterallydecidetoarrestanimmigrant
solely for being in the country unlawfully or violating his or her immigration status. In so
doing, the Court implicitly rejected Arizonas argument that local police have inherent
authoritytomakearrestsforcivilviolationsoftheimmigrationlaws.

Q: WhichprovisionofSB1070didtheSupremeCourtnotstrikedown,andwhy?
TheSupremeCourtfoundthatSection2(B)ofSB1070wasnotpreemptedbyfederallaw
but,asexplainedmorebelow,didnotprecludefuturelegalchallengetotheprovision.

Section2(B)saysthatwhenalawenforcementofficerstops,detainsorarrestssomeonefor
a valid reason, and then develops reasonable suspicion that the person is unlawfully
presentintheUnitedStates,theofficermustmakeareasonableattempttodeterminethe
personsimmigrationstatus.(Note:reasonablesuspicionmeanshavingavalidreasonto
suspectunlawfulactivity,butnotenoughevidencetomakeanarrest.)Section2(B)alsosays
thatanypersonwhoisarrestedmusthavetheirimmigrationstatuscheckedbeforetheyare
released,regardlessofwhetherthepersonissuspectedofbeinginthecountryunlawfully.
In both circumstances, state and local police officers are required to contact federal
immigrationauthoritiestodeterminewhetheranimmigrantisunlawfullypresent,notmake
adeterminationthemselves.

Q&A Guide to Arizona v. United States

Immigration Policy Center 4

TheCourtsaiditwasunclearwhetherSection2(B)waspreemptedbyfederallawbecause
therewasabasicuncertaintyabouthowitwouldbeenforced.Accordingly,theCourtsaid
the provision should be allowed to take effect but left the door open to future legal
challenges.Forexample,theCourtsaidtheprovisionwouldraiseconstitutionalproblemsif
law enforcement officers stopped people solely to determine their immigration status or
continuedholdingthemincustodyaftertheywereentitledtorelease.TheCourtalsosaid
theprovisionwoulddisruptthefederalframeworkenvisionedbyCongressifstateofficers
heldpeopleforimmigrationviolationswithoutfederaldirectionorsupervision.

Q: WhatdidtheSupremeCourtsayaboutimmigrationandprosecutorialdiscretion?
The Court stressed the importance of prosecutorial discretion, i.e., the legal principle
allowingthegovernmentnottoenforcethelawtoitsfullestextentinanyparticularcase.
Justaspoliceofficersoftendeclinetoarrestpeopleforminoroffenses(e.g.jaywalking),the
majority recognized that immigration officials may validly choose to not seek the
deportation of immigrants who could otherwise be placed in removal proceedings. As
JusticeKennedywroteinthemajorityopinion:

Discretion in the enforcement of immigration law embraces immediate human

concerns.Unauthorizedworkerstryingtosupporttheirfamilies,forexample,likely
poselessdangerthanaliensmugglersoralienswhocommitaseriouscrime.The
equities of an individual case may turn on many factors, including whether the
alien has children born in the United States, long ties to the community, or a
recordofdistinguishedmilitaryservice.Somediscretionarydecisionsinvolvepolicy
choicesthatbearonthisNationsinternationalrelations.Returninganalientohis
own country may be deemed inappropriate even where he has committed a
removableoffenseorfailstomeetthecriteriaforadmission. 11

Inemphasizingtheimportanceofprosecutorialdiscretion,theCourtsdecisionrecognized
that the removal of unauthorized immigrants is one of many competing objectives in the
enforcementoftheimmigrationlaws.

Q: WhatdidtheSupremeCourtsayaboutimmigrationandforeignrelations?
TheCourtsrulingaffirmedthataninherentconnectionexistsbetweenfederalimmigration
policy and the nations relationships with foreign countries. As Justice Kennedy stated,
[i]mmigrationpolicycanaffecttrade,investment,tourism,anddiplomaticrelationsforthe
entireNation,aswellastheperceptionsandexpectationsofaliensinthiscountrywhoseek
the full protection of its laws. 12 The majority noted that the perceived mistreatment of
immigrants in the United States may result in similar treatment of U.S. citizens in foreign
countries. Thus, the Court concluded that foreign countries concerned about the status,
safety, and security of their nationals in the United States must be able to confer and
communicateonthissubjectwithonenationalsovereign,notthe50separateStates. 13

Q&A Guide to Arizona v. United States

Immigration Policy Center 5

Q: WhatdidtheSupremeCourtsayaboutimmigrationreform?
TheCourtsrulingrecognizedthatArizonafacesuniqueproblemsonaccountofitslocation
along the border withMexico, and that states may be justifiably frustrated with Congress
forfailingtosolveproblemsrelatingtoillegalimmigration.However,theCourtemphasized
that the federal governmentand only the federal governmenthas the power to pass
meaningful immigration legislation. As Justice Kennedy said at the conclusion of the
majorityopinion:

The National Government has significant power to regulate immigration. With

power comes responsibility, and the sound exercise of national power over
immigrationdependsontheNationsmeetingitsresponsibilitytobaseitslawson
apoliticalwillinformedbysearching,thoughtful,rationalcivicdiscourse.Arizona
may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal
immigrationwhilethatprocesscontinues,buttheStatemaynotpursuepolicies
thatunderminefederallaw. 14

THE AFTERMATH
Q: WhichsidewonArizonav.UnitedStates?
Because the Supreme Court did not strike down every provision of SB 1070 under
consideration,supportersofthelawincludingArizonaGov.JanBrewerhaveattempted
toclaimtherulingasavictory.However,becausetheCourtstruckdownthreeprovisions
and left open future legal challenges to the fourth provisionmost legal commentators
haveconcludedthattheCourtsrulingrepresentedawinforthefederalgovernment. 15

Q: WhatisthestatusofSB1070inArizona?
As a result of the Supreme Courts ruling, the preliminary injunctions against Section 3,
Section5(C),andSection6willbecomepermanent.ThestatusofSection2(B)islessclear,
however, because the Courts ruling has not officially taken effect and civil rights groups
havefiledamotioninaseparatecaseseekinganewinjunctionagainsttheprovision.

WhentheSupremeCourtreleasesanopinion,therulingdoesnottakeeffectuntiltheCourt
issuesajudgment,whichtypicallyoccurs32daysafterthedecisionisissued.(Thedelayis
meant to give the parties time to ask the Court to reconsider its opinion.) Thus, the
preliminary injunction against Section 2(B) that was in place before the Supreme Courts
decisionwillremaininforceuntilatleastJuly27.

On July 17, civil rights groups sought a preliminary injunction against Section 2(B) in a
separate caseValle del Sol v. Whitingbased on additional arguments and evidence. 16
The motion argues that if Section 2(B) goes into effect, Arizona law enforcement will
inevitably detain individuals solely to determine their immigration status, a practice the
Supreme Court said would raise constitutional problems. The motion also argues that

Q&A Guide to Arizona v. United States

Immigration Policy Center 6

Arizona legislators were motivated by antiLatino bias in enacting SB 1070, citing, among
other evidence, inflammatory comments about Mexico and unauthorized immigrants in
emailsfromthelawschiefsponsor,formerStateSen.RussellPearce.

Q: IfSection2(B)takeseffect,willitbeimmunefromfuturelegalchallenges?
No. The Supreme Court specifically said that it was not foreclosing future challenges to
Section2(B).Forexample,theCourtmadeclearthat[d]etainingindividualssolelytoverify
theirimmigrationstatuswouldraiseconstitutionalconcerns. 17 Inaddition,theCourtsaid
thatSection2(B)wouldbepreemptedbyfederallawifitputstateofficersintheposition
of holding aliens in custody for possible unlawful presence without federal direction and
supervision. 18

Q: HowwilltheSupremeCourtsrulingaffectotherstateandlocalimmigrationlaws?
Because Supreme Court decisions apply nationwide, the principles announced in its ruling
arenotlimitedtoArizona.However,theextenttowhichtheCourtsrulingappliestoother
state and local immigration laws depends on the similarity between those laws and the
provisionsofSB1070atissueinthecase.

Forexample,unlessCongressenactsalawallowingsuchmeasures,nostatewillbeableto
enforcelawsmodeledontheprovisionstheSupremeCourtstruckdown(Section3,Section
5(C),andSection6).Thus,unlessauthorizedbyCongress,statescannotimposetheirown
penalties for the commission of federal immigration offenses, or authorize local police to
arrest immigrants solely on suspicion of being deportable. By the same token, unless
Congress enacts a law forbidding such measures, states may enforce laws modeled on
Section2(B)subject,ofcourse,totheconstitutionalandotherlegalconstraintsmentioned
intheCourtsopinion,ortheoutcomeofanyfuturelegalchallenges.

Atthesametime,theSupremeCourtsrulingdidnotdirectlydeterminethelegalityofstate
measuresthatwerenotbeforetheJustices.Forexample,thedecisiondidnotdefinitively
resolvethelegalityoftheprovisionofAlabamaHB56thatrequiresschooladministratorsto
ascertaintheimmigrationstatusofnewlyenrollingstudents.Similarly,thedecisiondidnot
resolve the legality of local lawslike those enacted by Farmers Branch, Texas, and
Hazleton, Pennsylvaniathat seek to prevent unauthorized immigrants from renting
apartments or other housing. The validity of these and other state and local immigration
lawswillbedeterminedduringfuturelitigation.

Q: CouldCongressoverridetheSupremeCourtsdecision?
Yes. The question under consideration was whether the four enjoined provisions were
preemptedunderfederallaw,notwhethertheywereprohibitedbytheConstitutionitself.
Thus, Congress may override the Courts decision by enacting new laws or amending the
relevantfederalprovision(s)toeliminatethesourceoftheconflict.Inaddition,theArizona
legislaturecouldpassmodificationstoSB1070,thevalidityofwhichwouldbedetermined
inlightoftheCourtsopinion.

Q&A Guide to Arizona v. United States

Immigration Policy Center 7

End Notes

ThefulltitleofthelawistheSupportOurLawEnforcementandSafeNeighborhoodsAct.FollowingthepassageofSB
1070,theArizonaLegislatureenactedafollowupmeasure(HB2162)amendingsomeofitsprovisions.
2
Formoreinformationonimmigrationenforcementlawsinotherstates,seetheImmigrationPolicyCenterSpecialReport,
AQ&AGuidetoStateImmigrationLaws(UpdatedFebruary2011).
3
UnitedStatesv.Arizona,703F.Supp.2d980(D.Ariz.2010)
4
UnitedStatesv.Arizona,641F.3d339(9thCir.2011).
5
LynnTramonte,DebunkingtheMythofSanctuaryCities,ImmigrationPolicyCenterSpecialReport(April2011).
6
Printzv.UnitedStates,521U.S.898(1997).
7
U.S.Constitution,ArticleVI.
8
Arizonav.UnitedStates,No.11182,atpage9.Thefullopinionisavailableat
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11182.pdf.
9
Arizonav.UnitedStates,No.11182,atpage11.
10
Arizonav.UnitedStates,No.11182,atpage14.
11
Arizonav.UnitedStates,No.11182,atpages45.
12
Arizonav.UnitedStates,No.11182,atpage3.
13
Arizonav.UnitedStates,No.11182,atpage3.
14
Arizonav.UnitedStates,No.11182,atpage25.
15
See,e.g.,DavidA.Martin,ReadingArizona,98Va.L.Rev.InBrief41(2012);LaurenGilbert,PatchworkImmigrationLaws
andFederalEnforcementPriorities,ImmigrationProfBlog,June27,2012;PeterSpiro,SupremeCourt(Mostly)GutsS.B.
1070,SCOTUSblog,June25,2012.
16
SeePlaintiffsMotionforPreliminaryInjunction,ValledelSolv.Whiting,No.101061(D.Ariz.filedJuly17,2012).
17
Arizonav.UnitedStates,No.11182,atpage22.
18
Arizonav.UnitedStates,No.11182,atpage22.

Q&A Guide to Arizona v. United States

Immigration Policy Center 8