The Supreme Court heard arguments today over how large a role states can play in enforcing federal immigration laws. At issue is a 2007 Arizona law that revokes the business license of anyone found employing unauthorized aliens.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, representing Arizona business owners and backed by the Obama Administration, argue that Congress intended for immigration laws to be the same in all states, and that the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) preempted almost all state efforts to impose penalties on businesses who hired unauthorized aliens.
Arizona says that IRCA contains an exception for state licensing laws and that states have historically been allowed to put whatever conditions they want on business licenses.
The Justices seemed hesitant to allow Arizona’s broad licensing power, with Justice Stephen Breyer several times pointing out that federal law carefully balances punishments for hiring illegal aliens against punishments for racial discrimination in hiring. Breyer suggested Arizona’s high penalty for hiring illegal aliens will force employers to avoid hiring anyone whose legal status might be questionable, leading to a racial hiring bias.
Justice Antonin Scalia seemed less concerned with the consequences, noting that states would probably not have felt the need to go this far if they thought the federal government were enforcing current immigration laws.
The Obama Administration’s lawyer, also arguing that Arizona had gone too far, suggested there was a difference between a state’s power to issue licenses and the power to revoke licenses. Solicitor General Neal Katyal also said that Arizona’s current licensing rules are very different from the rules Congress had in mind when IRCA was passed in 1986.
The court’s ruling, which will likely be handed down in spring or early summer, may have an effect on Arizona and other state laws on immigration, depending on how broadly the court decides to rule.
The case is Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting.