Analysis of Arizona s Border Security Law. July 6, Summary

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Analysis of Arizona s Border Security Law. July 6, Summary"

Transcription

1 MEMORANDUM Analysis of Arizona s Border Security Law July 6, 2010 Summary Although critics of the Arizona law dealing with border security and illegal immigration have protested and filed federal lawsuits, it is likely that the law will be upheld. The most common critiques of the law are that the federal government should handle immigration issues and that the law could justify racial profiling. However, a facial challenge to the law will likely fail because Congress has not preempted Arizona s statute, and the statute expressly states that police officers may not consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution. I. Preemption. A. The Field of Immigration Has Not Been Preempted by Congress and thus the Arizona Statute Is Not Per-se Unconstitutional. Quoting the Supreme Court case De Canas v. Bica, an Arizona appellate court noted that the [Supreme] Court has never held that every state enactment which in any way deals with aliens is a regulation of immigration and thus per se pre-empted by this constitutional power, whether latent or exercised. 1 The court then noted that De Canas outlined three ways in which state statutes related to immigration may be preempted: 1) if the state statute actually regulates immigration, 2) if it was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress to preclude even harmonious state regulation touching on aliens in general, and 3) if the state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purpose and objectives of Congress. 2 The Arizona court held that the human smuggling statute at issue in that case was constitutional because it did not violate the three part De Canas test, and actually mirror[ed] federal 1 Arizona v. Flores, 218 Ariz. 407, 412 (Ct. App. 2008) (quoting 424 U.S. 351, 355 (1976). 2 Id. (internal citations omitted). 1

2 objectives.... The same act may offend the laws of both the state and the federal government and may be prosecuted by each. 3 In Lozano v. City of Hazelton, however, the Middle District of Pennsylvania found that a federal law regarding the employment of unauthorized aliens had preempted state law in that area: 4 Congress has in fact enacted a comprehensive legislative scheme with regard to the employment of unauthorized aliens and occupies the field to the exclusion of state law. 5 In distinguishing this case from De Canas, the court recognized that the Immigration and Naturalization Act ( INA ) was not a comprehensive document because its central concern is with the terms and conditions of admission to the country and the subsequent treatment of aliens lawfully in the country rather than employment of unauthorized aliens. 6 The court, however, also recognized that since the INA was enacted, Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 ( IRCA ), which was meant to be a comprehensive law dealing with the employment of unauthorized aliens to the exclusion of certain state laws. 7 Based on the IRCA, the court concluded that the Ordinance [at issue in Lozano] as it applies to employers is field pre-empted. Immigration is a national issue. The United States Congress has provided complete and thorough regulations with regard to the employment of unauthorized aliens including anti-immigration discrimination provisions. Allowing States or local governments to legislate with regard to the employment of unauthorized aliens would interfere with Congressional objectives. 8 While certain employment issues relating to immigration may be field preempted, other issues are not. The Arizona law does not deal primarily with employment (other than a section dealing with the obstruction of traffic in connection with migrant work), and thus it is not per-se unconstitutional. Rather than regulate immigration, the law merely punishes unlawful conduct a primary issue of state concern in our system of federalism. The Arizona law would, however, be preempted if it directly conflicted with any federal law regulating immigration. B. The Arizona Statute Does Not Conflict with Federal Immigration Statutes. Many opinions have been offered from both sides as to whether the Arizona law is preempted by existing federal law. Steven A. Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies, believes the law is constitutional: The state s new immigration enforcement law is designed to mirror federal immigration laws. Federal law already requires aliens to register and carry their documents with them. The new Arizona law simply does the same thing. Because illegal immigrants are by definition in violation of federal immigration laws, they 3 Id. at 413 (citing Abbate v. United States, 359 U.S. 187, (1959)); see also Arizona v. Barragan-Sierra, 219 Ariz. 276 (Ct. App. 2008). 4 Lozano v. City of Hazelton, 496 F. Supp. 2d 477, 525 (M.D. Pa. 2007). 5 Id. 6 Id. at 524 (citing De Canas, 424 U.S. at 359). 7 Id. at Id. at

3 can now be arrested. The law is specifically designed to avoid the legal pitfall of pre-emption.... By simply making what is a federal violation also a state violation, the Arizona law avoids this problem. 9 On the other hand, Vivek Malhotra, an ACLU attorney, believes that federal law preempts the Arizona law: Arizona s passage of this law represents the most serious incursion by a state into the federal province of immigration regulation and enforcement since California s Proposition 187 in the 1990s. A federal court threw out much of that law because the state had overstepped its authority to engage in immigration matters. The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution similarly prevents Arizona from taking federal immigration enforcement into its own hands. 10 Arizona s law is not comparable, however, to California s Proposition 187. Another argument is that Arizona s attempt to help the federal government enforce its laws will actually be counterproductive, making the law in conflict with federal enforcement policy. 11 There is nothing in the Arizona law, however, that conflicts with federal law or enforcement policies. The above arguments are largely representative of the opinions of both sides on the issue of preemption. Those opining that the law is preempted by federal law have been unable to demonstrate that any specific federal law is in direct conflict with the Arizona law. As established above, Congress has not field preempted immigration. Thus, in order to find the bill unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause, the burden is on those claiming that it is unconstitutional to come forward with concrete evidence. It is unlikely that such evidence can be provided. II. Constitutional Criminal Procedure Issues. A. Equal Protection. Some argue that the law violates the Equal Protection Clause because the only way to enforce the law s most controversial provisions is through racial profiling, despite the fact that the law contains an express provision precluding law enforcement from using race as a factor 9 The Editors, Will Arizona s Immigration Law Survive, N.Y. Times, April 26, 2010, see also George F. Will, A Law Arizona Can Live With, WASHINGTON POST, April 28, 2010, ( Some critics seem not to understand Arizona s right to assert concurrent jurisdiction ). 10 Will Arizona s Immigration Law Survive, supra note Jack Balkin, Is Arizona s New Immigration Law Preempted?, BALKINIZATION, April 27, 2010, 3

4 except as permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitutions. 12 This argument is unpersuasive. Because the law expressly forbids any unconstitutional use of race by law enforcement, it should survive any facial challenge on Equal Protection grounds. Only an asapplied challenge with actual facts demonstrating improper discrimination should be able to provide a vehicle for a successful lawsuit under the Equal Protection Clause. In United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 13 the Supreme Court held that border officers violated the Constitution by stopping a defendant solely because of his apparent Mexican descent. The Court explained that race/ ancestry can be used as one of many relevant factors in this context: Any number of factors may be taken into account in deciding whether there is reasonable suspicion to stop a car in the border area. Officers may consider the characteristics of the area in which they encounter a vehicle. Its proximity to the border, the usual patterns of traffic on the particular road, and previous experience with alien traffic are all relevant.... The Government also points out that trained officers can recognize the characteristic appearance of persons who live in Mexico, relying on such factors as the mode of dress and haircut.... In all situations the officer is entitled to assess the facts in light of his experience in detecting illegal entry and smuggling.... In this case the officers relied on a single factor to justify stopping respondent s car: the apparent Mexican ancestry of the occupants. We cannot conclude that this furnished reasonable grounds to believe that the three occupants were aliens.... The likelihood that any given person of Mexican ancestry is an alien is high enough to make Mexican appearance a relevant factor, but standing alone it does not justify stopping all Mexican-Americans to ask if they are aliens. 14 The following year, in United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 15 the Court relied upon Brignoni-Ponce in holding that it is constitutional to refer motorists selectively to a secondary inspection area at a checkpoint largely on the basis of apparent Mexican ancestry. 16 The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has also noted that [r]ace or color alone is not a sufficient basis for making an investigatory stop.... However, race can be a relevant factor.... For example, a founded suspicion to make a border patrol stop can be based in part upon the characteristic appearance of aliens. 17 The Arizona statute is fully consistent with these cases. 12 E.g., James Doty, Arizona s New Immigration Law Is Unconstitutional, SALON, April 26, 2010, constitutional U.S. 873 (1975). 14 Id. at (emphasis added) U.S. 543 (1976). 16 Id. at United States v. Bautista, 684 F.2d 1286 (9th Cir. 1982) (citations omitted). 4

5 B. Reasonable Suspicion. The term reasonable suspicion has been around since at least the 1960 s, when the Supreme Court justified a limited search of an individual when the officer has reasonable suspicion that that criminal activity is afoot and that the suspect is armed and dangerous. 18 The term reasonable suspicion is well developed in case law and law enforcement officers are extremely familiar with this standard, as much of their operation is conducted under it. 19 The language of the statute makes clear that race could be used only as a factor under the reasonable suspicion standard, not solely as a basis for investigation. Such action is permissible under Supreme Court precedent, 20 especially in light of the fact that the statute expressly limits police authority to that which is consistent with the United States and Arizona Constitutions. C. Asking for Identification. The Arizona law requires that [f]or any lawful stop, detention or arrest made by a [state or local] law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency... in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance of a county, city or town or this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation. Presumably, the reasonable attempt required of police officers will include asking individuals who are suspected of being an unlawful alien for identification. Under Supreme Court precedent, officers are permitted to approach individuals on the street and engage them in conversation without implicating the Fourth Amendment. Our cases make it clear that a seizure does not occur simply because a police officer approaches an individual and asks a few questions. So long as a reasonable person would feel free to disregard the police and go about his business, the encounter is consensual and no reasonable suspicion is required. 21 A consensual encounter, however, rises to the level of a seizure under the Fourth Amendment when a reasonable person would not feel free to leave or otherwise terminate the encounter. 22 But such seizures are lawful under the Fourth Amendment if the officer has reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot. 23 If reasonable suspicion exists, an officer is 18 Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). 19 Will, supra note Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996) (holding that the subjective intent of the officer is irrelevant as long as he legally stops an individual). 21 Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 434 (1991) (internal citation omitted). 22 Id. 23 Terry, 392 U.S. at 21 (requiring the officer to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion ). 5

6 permitted to conduct a limited search of the person for weapons. 24 This is similar to what the Arizona law permits once an officer has reasonable suspicion that a person is an illegal alien, he may ask for identification to determine his legal status. Such a limited intrusion asking for identification is not outside of the scope of the limited search permitted under Terry. Terry s entire premise was based on balancing the needs of law enforcement against the legitimate expectations of individuals. 25 The Court found that, although a pat down of an individual could be embarrassing and intrusive, the need of law enforcement officers to protect themselves and do their job effectively outweighed the interests of the individual. The same balancing approach applies here. Arizona has a significant interest in determining the legal status of those within its borders when officers have reasonable suspicion that persons are there illegally. This interest is not outweighed by the extremely limited intrusion asking for identification into an individual s right to be free from unwanted government contact. III. Cases Involving Other State Laws. A. The Legal Arizona Workers Act was Not Preempted by Federal Law. An Arizona law called the Legal Arizona Workers Act ( LAWA ) was enacted in It applied to employers who hire illegal aliens and provided for revocation of their state license to do business in Arizona as its principal sanction. 26 This act was challenged as having been preempted by IRCA. 27 The Ninth Circuit found that LAWA was not expressly preempted because it fell within the savings clause of IRCA, which states that IRCA expressly preempts any State or local law imposing criminal or civil sanctions (other than through licensing or similar laws) upon those who employ... unauthorized aliens. 28 Ultimately, LAWA does not attempt to define who is eligible or ineligible under immigration laws. It is premised on the enforcement of federal standards as embodied in federal immigrations law. 29 The court then considered whether a portion of LAWA has been impliedly preempted. The provision in question mandates the use of a system called E-Verify, 30 which is a tool that checks the authorization status of employees. 31 The court first recognized that, though a state law or ordinance may not be expressly preempted, it may still be impliedly preempted and is still subject to the ordinary workings of conflict pre-emption principles. 32 Conflict preemption applies when a law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. 33 The Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court s holding that the requirement to use E-Verify was not preempted because, though Congress made participation voluntary, this does not mean that it prevented States from making participation 24 Id. at Id. at Chicanos por la Causa, Inc. v. Napolitano, 558 F.3d 856, 860 (9th Cir. 2009). 27 Id. 28 Id. at Id. at Id. 31 Id. at Id. at 866 (citing Geier v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861, 869 (2000)) (internal quotations omitted). 33 Id. 6

7 mandatory. 34 Rather, Congress plainly envisioned and endorsed an increase in its usage and such a requirement is consistent with and furthers this purpose. 35 The Ninth Circuit also considered the argument that such a requirement could result in discriminatory effects. 36 However, the court determined that nothing indicated that use of E- Verify resulted in greater discrimination and that such an argument was entirely speculative, as no complaint had yet been filed under LAWA. 37 The Supreme Court announced in late June 2010 that it will hear this case. 38 B. Pennsylvania Case. In contrast to the Ninth Circuit s findings in Chicanos por la Causa, the Middle District of Pennsylvania, in League of Latin American Citizens v. Wilson, found that a similar law imposing suspension of business permits for an employer who employed unauthorized aliens was preempted by federal law. 39 The court considered suspension of a business permit to be an ultimate sanction that is at odds with the plain language of the express pre-emption provision of the IRCA. 40 The court reasoned that [i]t would not make sense for Congress in limiting the state s authority to allow states and municipalities the opportunity to provide the ultimate sanction, but no lesser penalty. Such an interpretation renders the express preemption clause nearly meaningless. 41 The court also considered the revocation or refusal of a business license to be a violation of IRCA as well. 42 The court, though finding the Pennsylvania ordinances to be expressly preempted, still considered whether it was also impliedly preempted, recognizing implied preemption may still be applicable. 43 The court ultimately found that the federal government has a pervasive interest in immigration and that the IRCA is a comprehensive scheme that leaves no room for state regulation. 44 The court also found the ordinances to be in conflict with the IRCA because the employment provisions of the local ordinances differ from those in the IRCA. 45 C. All but Three Sections of California s Proposition 187 were Preempted by Federal Law Proposition 187 ( Prop. 187 ) was passed in the November 1994 general elections in California. 46 The main purpose of Prop. 187 was to prevent illegal aliens from receiving benefits 34 Id. at Id. at Id. 37 Id. 38 Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Candelaria, Case No Lozano v. City of Hazelton, 496 F. Supp. 2d 477, (M.D. Pa. 2007). 40 Id. at Id. 42 Id. at Id. at Id. at Id. at League of United Am. Citizens, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3418, at *1 (C.D. Cal. 1998). 7

8 or public services in the state of California. 47 Prop. 187 also included provisions denying public elementary and secondary education as well as public post-secondary education to students who are not citizens or who are in the U.S. illegally. 48 While this case was making its way through the court system, the President signed into law the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 ( PRA ), which creates a comprehensive statutory scheme for determining aliens eligibility for federal, state and local benefits and services. 49 The Central District of California applied the De Canas test from De Canas v. Bica 50 in determining that all but three provisions of Prop. 187 had been preempted by the PRA. 51 The court determined that any provision regarding benefits for aliens was preempted because it was the intention of Congress to occupy the field of regulation of government benefits to aliens, which is declared throughout the PRA. 52 The court also stated that the states have no power to effectuate a parallel scheme..., even if it does not conflict with the PRA. 53 Thus, the only regulations that California can promulgate now are regulations implementing the PRA. 54 Those provisions were also preempted because they conflicted with provisions of the PRA. 55 In regards to the provision of Prop. 187 that denied public primary or secondary education to a child who is not a citizen or is present illegally, the court held that, though the PRA does not deny such a benefit, it does deal specifically with the topic by deferring to Plyler v. Doe. 56 The court also found sufficient evidence that Congress intended to occupy the field of rights for non-citizens with regard to public postsecondary education based on provisions in the PRA and in the Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of Ultimately, the court concluded that California is powerless to enact its own legislative scheme to regulate alien access to public benefits. It can do what the PRA permits, and nothing more. 58 However, the court upheld a few sections of Prop. 187 that were not preempted. 59 D. Virginia Case. By contrast, the Eastern District of Virginia, in assessing the PRA, found just the opposite. 60 It found that Congress had not only failed to occupy the field of illegal alien eligibility for public post-secondary education, it has failed to legislate in this field at all and thus 47 Id. 48 Id. at * Id. at * De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351, 354, 363 (1976). 51 League of United Latin Am. Citizens, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3418 at *14 16, Id. at * Id. at * Id. 55 Id. at * Id. at * Id. at * Id. at * Id. 60 Equal Access Educ. v. Merten, 305 F. Supp. 2d 585, (E.D. Va. 2004). 8

9 has not occupied any part of it, completely or otherwise. 61 In reaching such a finding, the Eastern District of Virginia considered the Ninth Circuit s Ruling in League of United Latin American Citizens to be neither controlling nor persuasive Id. at Id. at 605 n.19. 9

State of Arizona v. United States of America: The Supreme Court Hears Arguments on SB 1070

State of Arizona v. United States of America: The Supreme Court Hears Arguments on SB 1070 FEDERATION FOR AMERICAN IMMIGRATION REFORM State of Arizona v. United States of America: The Supreme Court Hears Arguments on SB 1070 Introduction In its lawsuit against the state of Arizona, the United

More information

Facts About Federal Preemption

Facts About Federal Preemption NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER Facts About Federal Preemption How to analyze whether state and local initiatives are an unlawful attempt to enforce federal immigration law or regulate immigration Introduction

More information

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case :0-cv-00-SRB Document Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 Valle del Sol, et al., vs. Plaintiffs, Michael B. Whiting, et al., Defendants. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA No. CV 0-0-PHX-SRB

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Case :0-cv-0-SRB Document Filed /0/ Page of 0 United States of America, v. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Plaintiff, State of Arizona; and Janice K. Brewer, Governor of

More information

Analysis of Recent Anti-Immigrant Legislation in Oklahoma *

Analysis of Recent Anti-Immigrant Legislation in Oklahoma * Analysis of Recent Anti-Immigrant Legislation in Oklahoma * The Oklahoma Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act of 2007 (H.B. 1804) was signed into law by Governor Brad Henry on May 7, 2007. 1 Among its many

More information

Impact of Arizona v. United States and Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights v. Governor of Georgia on Georgia s Immigration Law 1

Impact of Arizona v. United States and Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights v. Governor of Georgia on Georgia s Immigration Law 1 Impact of Arizona v. United States and Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights v. Governor of Georgia on Georgia s Immigration Law 1 I. Introduction By: Benish Anver and Rocio Molina February 15, 2013

More information

Arizona v. United States: A Limited Role for States in Immigration Enforcement

Arizona v. United States: A Limited Role for States in Immigration Enforcement Arizona v. United States: A Limited Role for States in Immigration Enforcement Kate M. Manuel Legislative Attorney Michael John Garcia Actg Section Research Manager/ Legislative Attorney September 10,

More information

IN THE Supreme Court of the United States

IN THE Supreme Court of the United States No. 11-182 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States STATE OF ARIZONA, ET AL., Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Respondent. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth

More information

The Arizona Immigration Law: Racial Discrimination Prohibited

The Arizona Immigration Law: Racial Discrimination Prohibited The Arizona Immigration Law: Racial Discrimination Prohibited Hans A. von Spakovsky Abstract: Why has the Obama Administration, as part of its lawsuit against the Arizona statute that attempts to help

More information

State Immigration Enforcement Legal Analysis of Amended MS HB 488 (March 2012)

State Immigration Enforcement Legal Analysis of Amended MS HB 488 (March 2012) State Immigration Enforcement Legal Analysis of Amended MS HB 488 (March 2012) This memo will discuss the constitutionality of certain sections of Mississippi s HB 488 after House amendments. A. INTRODUCTION

More information

CRS Report for Congress

CRS Report for Congress CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Order Code RS22413 March 29, 2006 Summary Criminalizing Unlawful Presence: Selected Issues Michael John Garcia Legislative Attorney American Law Division

More information

Foreign Nationals & Immigration Issues

Foreign Nationals & Immigration Issues Foreign Nationals & Immigration Issues 16 th Annual Municipal Prosecutors Conference Addison, Texas March 5, 2009 A Look Ahead 1. Vienna Convention 2. ICE Holds 3. Illegal Status (Entry v. Presence) 4.

More information

NOTE PREEMPTION OF LOCAL REGULATIONS BEYOND LOZANO V. CITY OF HAZLETON: RECONCILING LOCAL ENFORCEMENT WITH FEDERAL IMMIGRATION POLICY. Mark S.

NOTE PREEMPTION OF LOCAL REGULATIONS BEYOND LOZANO V. CITY OF HAZLETON: RECONCILING LOCAL ENFORCEMENT WITH FEDERAL IMMIGRATION POLICY. Mark S. NOTE PREEMPTION OF LOCAL REGULATIONS BEYOND LOZANO V. CITY OF HAZLETON: RECONCILING LOCAL ENFORCEMENT WITH FEDERAL IMMIGRATION POLICY Mark S. Grube INTRODUCTION... 392 I. IMMIGRATION REGULATION AT THE

More information

PREEMPTION OF STATE AND LOCAL ENACTMENTS IN VIEW OF THE IRCA PREEMPTION SAVINGS CLAUSE. Vito Ciaravino

PREEMPTION OF STATE AND LOCAL ENACTMENTS IN VIEW OF THE IRCA PREEMPTION SAVINGS CLAUSE. Vito Ciaravino PREEMPTION OF STATE AND LOCAL ENACTMENTS IN VIEW OF THE IRCA PREEMPTION SAVINGS CLAUSE by Vito Ciaravino Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the King Scholar Program Michigan State

More information

In The Supreme Court of the United States

In The Supreme Court of the United States No. 11-182 In The Supreme Court of the United States STATE OF ARIZONA and JANICE K. BREWER, Governor of the State of Arizona, in her official capacity, Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

More information

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Cite as: 544 U. S. (2005) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of

More information

Federal Circuit Courts Split on Validity of Anti-Immigrant Housing Ordinances

Federal Circuit Courts Split on Validity of Anti-Immigrant Housing Ordinances Census population data. The final Act continues that practice until the end of the fiscal year. Significantly, the Agricultural Act of 2014 (commonly known as the Farm Bill ) 15 goes further by maintaining

More information

STATE OMNIBUS BILLS AND LAWS January 1 June 30, 2011

STATE OMNIBUS BILLS AND LAWS January 1 June 30, 2011 State Chamber Bill # Status Title Summary AL H 56 Enacted This law addresses a range of topics including law enforcement, employment, education, public benefits, harbor/transport/rental housing, voting

More information

Effects of Arizona v. U.S. on the Validity of State Immigrant Laws 1 By: Andrea Carcamo-Cavazos and Leslye E. Orloff

Effects of Arizona v. U.S. on the Validity of State Immigrant Laws 1 By: Andrea Carcamo-Cavazos and Leslye E. Orloff Effects of Arizona v. U.S. on the Validity of State Immigrant Laws 1 By: Andrea Carcamo-Cavazos and Leslye E. Orloff The National Immigrant Women s Advocacy Project American University, Washington College

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Case 2:10-cv-01061-SRB Document 358 Filed 07/14/10 Page 1 of 14 Michael Napier, State Bar No. 002603 James Abdo, State Bar No. 013731 NAPIER, ABDO, COURY & BAILLIE, P.C. 2525 East Arizona Biltmore Circle,

More information

PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF South Carolina s Senate Bill 20

PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF South Carolina s Senate Bill 20 PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF South Carolina s Senate Bill 20 Summary of major provisions: South Carolina s Senate Bill 20 forces all South Carolinians to carry specific forms of identification at all times

More information

2018 PA Super 183 : : : : : : : : :

2018 PA Super 183 : : : : : : : : : 2018 PA Super 183 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant v. TAREEK ALQUAN HEMINGWAY IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 684 WDA 2017 Appeal from the Order March 31, 2017 In the Court of Common Pleas

More information

ARIZONA, et al., UNITED STATES, No In The Supreme Court of the United States

ARIZONA, et al., UNITED STATES, No In The Supreme Court of the United States No. 11-182 In The Supreme Court of the United States -------------------------- --------------------------- ARIZONA, et al., v. UNITED STATES, Petitioners, Respondent. -------------------------- --------------------------

More information

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Cite as: 531 U. S. (2000) 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 99 1030 CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. JAMES EDMOND ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR

More information

IN THE Supreme Court of the United States

IN THE Supreme Court of the United States No. 12-71 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States STATE OF ARIZONA, ET AL., Petitioners, v. INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL OF ARIZONA, ET AL., Respondents. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals

More information

MICHAEL EUGENE JONES OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE LEROY F. MILLETTE, JR. April 15, 2010 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

MICHAEL EUGENE JONES OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE LEROY F. MILLETTE, JR. April 15, 2010 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA PRESENT: Hassell, C.J., Keenan, 1 Millette, JJ., and Lacy, S.J. Koontz, Lemons, Goodwyn, and MICHAEL EUGENE JONES OPINION BY v. Record No. 091539 JUSTICE LEROY F. MILLETTE, JR. April 15, 2010 COMMONWEALTH

More information

Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States No. 09-115 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES, et al., Petitioners, v. MICHAEL B. WHITING, et al., Respondents. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States

More information

1 of 5 9/16/2014 2:02 PM

1 of 5 9/16/2014 2:02 PM 1 of 5 9/16/2014 2:02 PM Suspects Who Refuse to Identify Themselves By Jeff Bray, Senior Legal Advisor, Plano, Texas, Police Department police officer does not need probable cause to stop a car or a pedestrian

More information

FOR IMMIGRATION OFFICERS M-69

FOR IMMIGRATION OFFICERS M-69 U.S. Department of Justice THE LAW OF ARREST, SEARCH, AND SEIZURE FOR IMMIGRATION OFFICERS M-69 January 1993 Edition OFFICIAL USE ONLY IMMIGRATION AND NATDRAOZATION SERVICE THIS MATERIAL IS THE PROPERTY

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED January 19, 2016 v No. 323727 Branch Circuit Court STEVEN DUANE DENT, a/k/a JAMES LC No. 07-048753-FC

More information

No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. PEDRO LOZANO et al., CITY OF HAZLETON,

No UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. PEDRO LOZANO et al., CITY OF HAZLETON, No. 07-3531 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT PEDRO LOZANO et al., v. CITY OF HAZLETON, Plaintiffs-Appellees, Defendant-Appellant. On Appeal from the United States District Court for

More information

Authority of State and Local Police to Enforce Federal Immigration Law

Authority of State and Local Police to Enforce Federal Immigration Law Authority of State and Local Police to Enforce Federal Immigration Law Michael John Garcia Legislative Attorney Kate M. Manuel Legislative Attorney September 10, 2012 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for

More information

uprgme eurt the nite tate

uprgme eurt the nite tate No. 09-115 uprgme eurt the nite tate CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., VS. Petitioners, CRISS CANDELARIA, et al., Respondents. On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari To The United

More information

State and Local Enforcement of Federal Immigration Law. The Arizona Experiment

State and Local Enforcement of Federal Immigration Law. The Arizona Experiment International Association of Chiefs of Police, Inc. 2010 Annual Conference Orlando, FL Oct. 25th State and Local Enforcement of Federal Immigration Law The Arizona Experiment Beverly Ginn, Edwards & Ginn

More information

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs July 21, 2010

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs July 21, 2010 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs July 21, 2010 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. KEVIN M. FRIERSON Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County No. 2007-C-2329

More information

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Cite as: 555 U. S. (2009) 1 NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION Case 1:09-cv-03286-TCB Document 265-1 Filed 12/08/10 Page 1 of 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION GEOFFREY CALHOUN, et al. Plaintiffs, v. RICHARD PENNINGTON,

More information

Threading the Needle: State Immigration-Related Employment Laws Surviving a Federal Preemption Analysis

Threading the Needle: State Immigration-Related Employment Laws Surviving a Federal Preemption Analysis Wyoming Law Review Volume 12 Number 1 Article 12 2012 Threading the Needle: State Immigration-Related Employment Laws Surviving a Federal Preemption Analysis Christopher M. Sherwood Follow this and additional

More information

JUSTIFICATION FOR STOPS AND ARRESTS

JUSTIFICATION FOR STOPS AND ARRESTS JUSTIFICATION FOR STOPS AND ARRESTS PLUS INFORMANTS slide #1 THOMAS K. CLANCY Director National Center for Justice and Rule of Law The University of Mississippi School of Law University, MS 38677 Phone:

More information

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. State of New Hampshire

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. State of New Hampshire THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE Cheshire-Hillsborough County Jaffrey-Peterborough District Court Nashua District Court State of New Hampshire v. Frederico Barros-Batistele - #05-CR-1474,1475 Wellington Brustolin

More information

State v. McHugh: The Louisiana Supreme Court Upholds Gaming Checks

State v. McHugh: The Louisiana Supreme Court Upholds Gaming Checks Golden Gate University School of Law GGU Law Digital Commons Publications Faculty Scholarship 1994 State v. McHugh: The Louisiana Supreme Court Upholds Gaming Checks Anthony S. Niedwiecki Golden Gate University

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA. The United States of America, No. CV PHX-SRB. Plaintiff,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA. The United States of America, No. CV PHX-SRB. Plaintiff, 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Timothy J. Casey (#01) SCHMITT, SCHNECK, SMYTH & HERROD, P.C. East Osborn Road, Suite Phoenix, AZ 01-0 Telephone: (0) -000 Facsimile: (0) - timcasey@azbarristers.com Attorney No. 01 Special

More information

Page U.S. 129 S.Ct L. Ed. 2d 694. v. LEMON MONTREA JOHNSON. No Supreme Court of United States. Argued December 9, 2008.

Page U.S. 129 S.Ct L. Ed. 2d 694. v. LEMON MONTREA JOHNSON. No Supreme Court of United States. Argued December 9, 2008. Page 1 555 U.S. 129 S.Ct. 781 172 L. Ed. 2d 694 ARIZONA, PETITIONER v. LEMON MONTREA JOHNSON No. 07-1122. Supreme Court of United States. Argued December 9, 2008. Decided January 26, 2009. In Terry v.

More information

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs August 14, 2013

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs August 14, 2013 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs August 14, 2013 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JOSHUA LYNN PITTS Appeal from the Circuit Court for Rutherford County No. M67716 David

More information

[J ] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT

[J ] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT [J-16-2015] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, v. TIFFANY LEE BARNES, Appellant Appellee : No. 111 MAP 2014 : : Appeal from the Order of the Superior : Court

More information

No. 112,322 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, GUADALUPE OCHOA-LARA, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

No. 112,322 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, GUADALUPE OCHOA-LARA, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT No. 112,322 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. GUADALUPE OCHOA-LARA, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. Whether a state statute is preempted by federal law involves

More information

MINNESOTA v. DICKERSON 113 S.Ct (1993) United States Supreme Court

MINNESOTA v. DICKERSON 113 S.Ct (1993) United States Supreme Court Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice Volume 1 Issue 1 Article 19 Spring 4-1-1995 MINNESOTA v. DICKERSON 113 S.Ct. 2130 (1993) United States Supreme Court Follow this and additional

More information

No IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT

No IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT No. 2013-10725 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF CESAR ADRIAN VARGAS, AN APPLICANT FOR ADMISSION TO THE NEW

More information

Stop, Frisk and Related Issues. Capt. Adam R. Austino Vineland Police Department

Stop, Frisk and Related Issues. Capt. Adam R. Austino Vineland Police Department Stop, Frisk and Related Issues Capt. Adam R. Austino Vineland Police Department To Be Discussed When can police stop a vehicle? When can police stop a pedestrian? The difference between mere inquiries

More information

KNOWLES v. IOWA. certiorari to the supreme court of iowa

KNOWLES v. IOWA. certiorari to the supreme court of iowa OCTOBER TERM, 1998 113 Syllabus KNOWLES v. IOWA certiorari to the supreme court of iowa No. 97 7597. Argued November 3, 1998 Decided December 8, 1998 An Iowa policeman stopped petitioner Knowles for speeding

More information

WARRENVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT TRAINING SEMINAR

WARRENVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT TRAINING SEMINAR September 2001 WARRENVILLE POLICE DEPARTMENT TRAINING SEMINAR RACIAL PROFILING: Legal and Departmental Issues CHARLES E HERVAS MICHAEL W. CONDON HERVAS, SOTOS, CONDON & BERSANI, P.C. 333 PIERCE ROAD, SUITE

More information

Suspects Who Refuse to Identify Themselves By Jeff Bray, Senior Legal Advisor, Plano, Texas, Police Department

Suspects Who Refuse to Identify Themselves By Jeff Bray, Senior Legal Advisor, Plano, Texas, Police Department Page 1 of 6 Advanced Search September 2014 Back to Archives Back to April 2007 Contents Chief's Counsel Suspects Who Refuse to Identify Themselves By Jeff Bray, Senior Legal Advisor, Plano, Texas, Police

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 1 1 1 TERRY GODDARD Attorney General Firm Bar No. 00 Mary O Grady, No. 0 Solicitor General Christopher A. Munns, 0 Assistant Attorney General West Washington Street Phoenix, Arizona 00- Tel: (0) - Fax:

More information

F I L E D March 21, 2012

F I L E D March 21, 2012 Case: 10-10751 Document: 00511796125 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/21/2012 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit F I L E D March 21, 2012 Lyle

More information

HOUSE BILL 2162 AN ACT

HOUSE BILL 2162 AN ACT Conference Engrossed State of Arizona House of Representatives Forty-ninth Legislature Second Regular Session HOUSE BILL AN ACT AMENDING SECTIONS -0 AND -0, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES; AMENDING SECTION -,

More information

STATE V. GUTIERREZ, 2004-NMCA-081, 136 N.M. 18, 94 P.3d 18 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DEMETRIO DANIEL GUTIERREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

STATE V. GUTIERREZ, 2004-NMCA-081, 136 N.M. 18, 94 P.3d 18 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DEMETRIO DANIEL GUTIERREZ, Defendant-Appellant. 1 STATE V. GUTIERREZ, 2004-NMCA-081, 136 N.M. 18, 94 P.3d 18 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DEMETRIO DANIEL GUTIERREZ, Defendant-Appellant. Docket No. 23,047 COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO

More information

Unlawfully Present Aliens, Higher Education, In- State Tuition, and Financial Aid: Legal Analysis

Unlawfully Present Aliens, Higher Education, In- State Tuition, and Financial Aid: Legal Analysis Cornell University ILR School DigitalCommons@ILR Federal Publications Key Workplace Documents 3-28-2014 Unlawfully Present Aliens, Higher Education, In- State Tuition, and Financial Aid: Legal Analysis

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 8:16-cr EAK-MAP-1.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 8:16-cr EAK-MAP-1. USA v. Iseal Dixon Doc. 11010182652 Case: 17-12946 Date Filed: 07/06/2018 Page: 1 of 8 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 17-12946 Non-Argument Calendar

More information

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 118,223 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. In the Matter of A.A-M. MEMORANDUM OPINION

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 118,223 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. In the Matter of A.A-M. MEMORANDUM OPINION NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 118,223 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS In the Matter of A.A-M. MEMORANDUM OPINION Affirmed. Appeal from Wyandotte District Court; DELIA M. YORK, judge.

More information

Roadblock Revelations:

Roadblock Revelations: Roadblock Revelations: Exposing the police state one checkpoint at a time Websites: https://www.checkpointusa.org/blog https://www.roadblockrevelations.org/wp Day (and night) Job: Engineer/observer for

More information

THE LIMITS OF STATE AND LOCAL IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT AND REGULATION

THE LIMITS OF STATE AND LOCAL IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT AND REGULATION THE LIMITS OF STATE AND LOCAL IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT AND REGULATION Yule Kim * I. PREEMPTION DOCTRINE... 244 A. Preemption of State and Local Enforcement of Federal Immigration Laws... 246 B. Preemption

More information

In the Supreme Court of the United States

In the Supreme Court of the United States No. 09-115 In the Supreme Court of the United States CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. MICHAEL B. WHITING, ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT

More information

In The Supreme Court of the United States

In The Supreme Court of the United States No. 12-884 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- STATE OF ALABAMA

More information

I N T H E COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

I N T H E COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res

More information

Case 4:07-cv ERW Document 53 Filed 08/10/2007 Page 1 of 4

Case 4:07-cv ERW Document 53 Filed 08/10/2007 Page 1 of 4 Case 4:07-cv-00881-ERW Document 53 Filed 08/10/2007 Page 1 of 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION WINDHOVER, INC., and ) JACQUELINE GRAY, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) Cause

More information

Commonwealth Of Kentucky. Court of Appeals

Commonwealth Of Kentucky. Court of Appeals RENDERED: MAY 21, 2004; 2:00 p.m. TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth Of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2003-CA-000584-MR EDWARD LAMONT HARDY APPELLANT APPEAL FROM FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE SHEILA R.

More information

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before LUCERO, GORSUCH and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ORDER AND JUDGMENT * Before LUCERO, GORSUCH and MATHESON, Circuit Judges. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit TENTH CIRCUIT April 24, 2014 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court v. CINDY

More information

Case 2:11-cv SLB Document 96 Filed 09/30/11 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION

Case 2:11-cv SLB Document 96 Filed 09/30/11 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION Case 2:11-cv-02746-SLB Document 96 Filed 09/30/11 Page 1 of 8 FILED 2011 Sep-30 PM 03:17 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION

More information

COMMON LEGAL ISSUES ARISING FROM TRAFFIC STOPS A Q&A with Lexipol s Ken Wallentine.

COMMON LEGAL ISSUES ARISING FROM TRAFFIC STOPS A Q&A with Lexipol s Ken Wallentine. COMMON LEGAL ISSUES ARISING FROM TRAFFIC STOPS A Q&A with Lexipol s Ken Wallentine NOTE The information provided here is based on a Fourth Amendment analysis. State constitutions and state courts may apply

More information

STATE EMPLOYER SANCTIONS LAWS AND THE FEDERAL PREEMPTION DOCTRINE: THE LEGAL ARIZONA WORKERS ACT REVISITED

STATE EMPLOYER SANCTIONS LAWS AND THE FEDERAL PREEMPTION DOCTRINE: THE LEGAL ARIZONA WORKERS ACT REVISITED STATE EMPLOYER SANCTIONS LAWS AND THE FEDERAL PREEMPTION DOCTRINE: THE LEGAL ARIZONA WORKERS ACT REVISITED Nchimunya D. Ndulo* As the desire to seize upon employment opportunities within the United States

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE DEFENDANTS I. INTRODUCTION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE DEFENDANTS I. INTRODUCTION The Honorable Richard A. Jones IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 1 CITY OF SEATTLE, Plaintiff, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., Defendants. No. -cv-00raj BRIEF OF

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED September 15, 2016 v No. 328255 Washtenaw Circuit Court WILLIAM JOSEPH CLOUTIER, LC No. 14-000874-FH

More information

Title VII: Relationship and Effect on State Action

Title VII: Relationship and Effect on State Action Boston College Law Review Volume 7 Issue 3 Article 7 4-1-1966 Title VII: Relationship and Effect on State Action John W. Purdy Follow this and additional works at: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr

More information

Class Actions. Unconscionable Consumer Class Action Waivers And The Federal Arbitration Act MEALEY S LITIGATION REPORT

Class Actions. Unconscionable Consumer Class Action Waivers And The Federal Arbitration Act MEALEY S LITIGATION REPORT MEALEY S LITIGATION REPORT Class Actions Unconscionable Consumer Class Action Waivers And The Federal Arbitration Act by Marc J. Goldstein Marc J. Goldstein Litigation and Arbitration Chambers New York,

More information

Traffic Stop Scenario Jeff Welty October 2016

Traffic Stop Scenario Jeff Welty October 2016 Traffic Stop Scenario Jeff Welty October 2016 Officer Ollie Ogletree is on patrol one Saturday night at about 10:00 p.m. He s driving along a major commercial road in a lower middle class section of town

More information

Authority of State and Local Police to Enforce Federal Immigration Law

Authority of State and Local Police to Enforce Federal Immigration Law Authority of State and Local Police to Enforce Federal Immigration Law Michael John Garcia Legislative Attorney Kate M. Manuel Legislative Attorney August 17, 2011 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for

More information

APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for La Crosse County: RAMONA A. GONZALEZ, Judge. Affirmed.

APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for La Crosse County: RAMONA A. GONZALEZ, Judge. Affirmed. COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED July 21, 2011 A. John Voelker Acting Clerk of Court of Appeals NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear

More information

State Efforts to Deter Unauthorized Aliens: Legal Analysis of Arizona s S.B. 1070

State Efforts to Deter Unauthorized Aliens: Legal Analysis of Arizona s S.B. 1070 State Efforts to Deter Unauthorized Aliens: Legal Analysis of Arizona s S.B. 1070 Michael John Garcia Legislative Attorney Larry M. Eig Specialist in American Public Law Yule Kim Legislative Attorney May

More information

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit No. 17-2741 United States of America Plaintiff - Appellee v. Thomas Reddick Defendant - Appellant Appeal from United States District Court for the

More information

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 117,900 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, JOSEPH E. THAYER, Appellant.

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 117,900 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, JOSEPH E. THAYER, Appellant. NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 117,900 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. JOSEPH E. THAYER, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Appeal from Reno District Court;

More information

No In The Supreme Court of the United States EFRAIN TAYLOR, On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Maryland

No In The Supreme Court of the United States EFRAIN TAYLOR, On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Maryland No. 16-467 In The Supreme Court of the United States EFRAIN TAYLOR, v. Petitioner, STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Maryland BRIEF IN OPPOSITION

More information

Supreme Court of Florida

Supreme Court of Florida Supreme Court of Florida QUINCE, J. No. SC13-318 STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, vs. KERRICK VAN TEAMER, Respondent. [July 3, 2014] This case is before the Court for review of the decision of the First District

More information

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 115,044 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee,

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 115,044 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION No. 115,044 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, v. FRAN AMILCAR ANDRADE-REYES, Appellant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Affirmed. Appeal from Johnson

More information

MEMORANDUM. Sheriffs, Undersheriffs, Jail Administrators. Compliance with federal detainer warrants. Date February 14, 2017

MEMORANDUM. Sheriffs, Undersheriffs, Jail Administrators. Compliance with federal detainer warrants. Date February 14, 2017 MEMORANDUM To re Sheriffs, Undersheriffs, Jail Administrators Compliance with federal detainer warrants Date February 14, 2017 From Thomas Mitchell, NYSSA Counsel Introduction At the 2017 Sheriffs Winter

More information

SUMMARY. The Dept. of Economic Security must verify the immigration status of applicants for child welfare services and certain other public benefits.

SUMMARY. The Dept. of Economic Security must verify the immigration status of applicants for child welfare services and certain other public benefits. NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER 2005 State Legislation Restricting Benefits for Immigrants or Promoting State and Local Enforcement of Immigration Laws December 14, 2005 AL HB 452 Would amend the state

More information

State Efforts to Deter Unauthorized Aliens: Legal Analysis of Arizona s S.B. 1070

State Efforts to Deter Unauthorized Aliens: Legal Analysis of Arizona s S.B. 1070 State Efforts to Deter Unauthorized Aliens: Legal Analysis of Arizona s S.B. 1070 Kate M. Manuel Legislative Attorney Michael John Garcia Legislative Attorney Larry M. Eig Specialist in American Public

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED December 28, 2010 v No. 290094 Ingham Circuit Court KENNETH DEWAYNE ROBERTS, LC No. 08-000838-FH Defendant-Appellee.

More information

State Power to Regulate Immigration: Searching for a Workable Standard in Light of United States v. Arizona and Keller v.

State Power to Regulate Immigration: Searching for a Workable Standard in Light of United States v. Arizona and Keller v. Nebraska Law Review Volume 91 Issue 2 Article 7 2012 State Power to Regulate Immigration: Searching for a Workable Standard in Light of United States v. Arizona and Keller v. City of Fremont Christopher

More information

Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Whiting, 131 S. Ct (2011)

Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Whiting, 131 S. Ct (2011) 563 U.S. --- 131 S.ct. 1968 CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ET AL. v. WHITING ET AL. No. 09-115. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Argued December 8, 2010 OCTOBER TERM, 2010 Decided

More information

In The Supreme Court of the United States

In The Supreme Court of the United States No. 13-806 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- STATE OF ARIZONA

More information

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND & PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS. Dennis Lonardo : : v. : A.A. No : State of Rhode Island : (RITT Appellate Panel) :

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND & PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS. Dennis Lonardo : : v. : A.A. No : State of Rhode Island : (RITT Appellate Panel) : STATE OF RHODE ISLAND & PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS PROVIDENCE, Sc. DISTRICT COURT SIXTH DIVISION Dennis Lonardo : : v. : A.A. No. 12-47 : State of Rhode Island : (RITT Appellate Panel) : A M E N D E D O R

More information

Why Arizona Senate Bill 1070 Is Constitutional and Not Preempted by Federal Law

Why Arizona Senate Bill 1070 Is Constitutional and Not Preempted by Federal Law Texas Tech University From the SelectedWorks of Calvin L. Lewis January 24, 2012 Why Arizona Senate Bill 1070 Is Constitutional and Not Preempted by Federal Law Calvin Lionel Lewis, Texas Tech University

More information

l_132_ nd General Assembly Regular Session Sub. H. B. No

l_132_ nd General Assembly Regular Session Sub. H. B. No 132nd General Assembly Regular Session Sub. H. B. No. 228 2017-2018 A B I L L To amend sections 9.68, 307.932, 2307.601, 2901.05, 2901.09, 2923.12, 2923.126, 2923.16, 2953.37, 5321.01, and 5321.13 and

More information

Authority of State and Local Officers to Arrest Aliens Suspected of Civil Infractions of Federal Immigration Law

Authority of State and Local Officers to Arrest Aliens Suspected of Civil Infractions of Federal Immigration Law I. Introduction Authority of State and Local Officers to Arrest Aliens Suspected of Civil Infractions of Federal Immigration Law This memorandum addresses the legal authority of state and local law enforcement

More information

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY [Cite as State v. Figueroa, 2010-Ohio-189.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN ) STATE OF OHIO C. A. No. 09CA009612 Appellant v. MARILYN FIGUEROA Appellee

More information

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2016 ANTONIO JOHNSON STATE OF MARYLAND

IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2016 ANTONIO JOHNSON STATE OF MARYLAND Circuit Court for Baltimore City Case No. 117107009 UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 1654 September Term, 2016 ANTONIO JOHNSON v. STATE OF MARYLAND Eyler, Deborah S., Wright,

More information

Barry Nelson Covert, for appellant. Raymond C. Herman, for respondent. To ensure the safety of our roads, a police officer may

Barry Nelson Covert, for appellant. Raymond C. Herman, for respondent. To ensure the safety of our roads, a police officer may This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York Reports. ----------------------------------------------------------------- No. 50 The People &c., Respondent, v. Andrew

More information

No IN THE Supreme Court of the United States. ARIZONA, et al., UNITED STATES,

No IN THE Supreme Court of the United States. ARIZONA, et al., UNITED STATES, No. 11-182 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ARIZONA, et al., Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES, Respondent. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRIEF

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA. The United States of America, No. Plaintiff, COMPLAINT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA. The United States of America, No. Plaintiff, COMPLAINT Case :-cv-0-nvw Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Tony West Assistant Attorney General Dennis K. Burke United States Attorney Arthur R. Goldberg Assistant Director, Federal Programs Branch Varu Chilakamarri

More information

Circuit Court for Baltimore City Case No UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2018

Circuit Court for Baltimore City Case No UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2018 Circuit Court for Baltimore City Case No. 118059004 UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 968 September Term, 2018 PATRICK HOWELL v. STATE OF MARYLAND Friedman, Beachley, Moylan, Charles

More information