Arizona Immigration Law Gets OK From High Court

The Supreme Court today upheld an Arizona law that would suspend or revoke a business’s license if that business hires undocumented immigrants.

The law had been challenged by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which argued that only the federal government could penalize businesses for immigration law violations. The Obama administration had supported that view.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion in the case, saying that the Arizona’s law is a “licensing” law, and federal immigration law carves out an exception for licensing laws. The Immigration Reform and Control Act prohibits states from “imposing civil or criminal sanctions,” but it says that “licensing and similar laws” are excluded. Debate in the Supreme Court focused on whether the exception refers only to laws granting business licenses, or whether laws revoking business licenses are also excluded.

The Chamber of Commerce argued that revoking a business license is a punishment, just like a fine, and therefore states should be prohibited from revoking licenses on the basis of immigration law violations.

In the opinion, Chief Justice Roberts also noted that, historically, states have been given broad discretion in deciding how to regulate businesses. Further, he argued that common dictionary definitions of “licensing” and other federal laws support the view that “licensing” includes both granting and revoking.

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Sonia Sotomayor dissented. In their dissents, the Justices argued that punitive license revocation allowed under the Arizona law was the kind of thing Congress sought to prevent when it passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act.

Sotomayor wrote that one of Congress’s motivations in passing the Immigration Reform and Control Act was to overrule state laws imposing fines on businesses who hired undocumented immigrants. In that law, Sotomayor argued, Congress “made explicit its intent that [immigration laws] be enforced uniformly” across the country.

The case is Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting.