Supreme Court Upholds Arizona Law Penalizing Businesses For Hiring Illegal Immigrants
Supreme Court Arizona Immigration Law

By MARK SHERMAN 05/26/11 10:54 AM ET AP





WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court has sustained Arizona's law that penalizes businesses for hiring workers who are in the United States illegally, rejecting arguments that states have no role in immigration matters.

By a 5-3 vote, the court said Thursday that federal immigration law gives states the authority to impose sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized workers.

The decision upholding the validity of the 2007 law comes as the state is appealing a ruling that blocked key components of a second, more controversial Arizona immigration enforcement law. Thursday's decision applies only to business licenses and does not signal how the high court might rule if the other law comes before it.

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for a majority made up of Republican-appointed justices, said the Arizona's employer sanctions law "falls well within the confines of the authority Congress chose to leave to the states."

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, all Democratic appointees, dissented. The fourth Democratic appointee, Justice Elena Kagan, did not participate in the case because she worked on it while serving as President Barack Obama's solicitor general

Breyer said the Arizona law upsets a balance in federal law between dissuading employers from hiring illegal workers and ensuring that people are not discriminated against because they may speak with an accent or look like they might be immigrants.

Employers "will hesitate to hire those they fear will turn out to lack the right to work in the United States," he said.

.Business interests and civil liberties groups challenged the law, backed by the Obama administration.

The measure was signed into law in 2007 by Democrat Janet Napolitano, then the governor of Arizona and now the administration's Homeland Security secretary.

The employer sanctions law has been only infrequently used. It was intended to diminish Arizona's role as the nation's hub for immigrant smuggling by requiring employers to verify the eligibility of new workers through a federal database. Employers found to have violated the law can have their business licenses suspended or revoked.

Lower courts, including the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, previously upheld the law.

The case is Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, 09-115.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/26/supreme-court-upholds-ari_n_867432.html?icid=maing-grid7|customfirefox|dl1|sec3_lnk1|66223


Excellent news.

Something I have been fighting for all along,

Now other states can do the same.

It is a double edge sword though as usual. It will drive more of the under the table type of work. And may increase the crime rate due to lack of ways to support themselves.

Good show though.

this was a slam dunk. it's the other az law that's on shakey gronds.

cut off the head(figuratively), the rest will follow,,,

Agreed.

They have to find a way to keep racial/ethnic profiling out of the bills first. Can't have this country stepping backwards into more racism that is for sure.

yes but it's not just profiling that's the problem constitutionally. the real problem will be enforcing proof of citizenship. when i jog with my very hispanic looking best buddy, neither of us has our wallet in our back pocket. hey, we don't even have back pokets.

It is already law here and has been since I have been alive I believe that you have to have some form of ID on you if asked if you are of age. Or you are taken into custody to be identified.

you must live someplace other than america dragon. no such law exists anywhere in the US.

you can be detained if you refuse to identify yourself in some circumstances however. but you can do so verbally.

if your jogging down the street, you shouldn't be hassled over it. but if your applying for a job, food stamps, getting a speeding ticket or anything to do with breaking the law, they should have the right to ask you if your here legally.

anything requiring a contract (applying for a job or food stamps) or anything requiring LICENSING (driving a car) should reasonably require proof of who was licensed to be driving or who is taking part in the contract

JUST being present somewhere in the united states, minding your own business, does not and should not MANDATE That one has an ID on their person.

and what did i post?

Unless I'm on my property working, I ALWAYS have my ID on me. I don't get why people don't automatically do it anyways. Heck, I always have my keys on me, if I'm not on my property, and my phone. Carrying idea isn't that big of a deal, even if I'm switching from my wallet/purse to something less bulky.

because you can go to jail if you don't have it, but some people want to argue that fact... but i agree with you, it is just easier to have it with you all the time...

Yep, and in all honesty, it's such a habit now, I don't even think about it.

ITs a big deal to me for several reasons

the first being, this is supposed to be a free country and not a police state where I have to PROVE my identity whenever stopped for any reason,,,


the second being, picture ID is USUALLY something that we are required to PAY for, and things like Drivers licenses,passports, birth certificates (And other forms of ID) also cost money to replace if STOLEN or lost,

the third being that ANY of those types of ids if LOST or STOLEN can become misused by strangers and ID theft is becoming MORE AND MORE of a common crime in this country

so, no, I dont wish to carry my LIFE around with me just to do common things like take a walk, go jogging, or shop at the store,,,

you can only go to jail if you commit a crime or are convicted of committing a crime, NOT FOR ABSENCE OF ID,(unless you are operating a vehicle)

show me one police report that ever said someone was incarcerated even for one day for merely NOT HAVING ID,,,,,

asking for id is far and away from the requirement to carry id. applying for a job, food stamps, id is part of the process but nobody is required to apply for such things. a driver's license is proof that you've passed the requirements to drive a car. of course if there is probable cause that a crime has been committed one may be asked to identify him/herself but nothing in any statute in america requires a person to even apply for an id.

people criminally in the country for work will leave Arizona and become someone elses problem, when 1070 was signed the illegal population dropped and when it goes into full effect Arizona ought to be illegal free Come to this country the right way like millions of other immigrants or states will handle the problem themselves unless the feds do what they are supposed to, but they won't because both sides are in bed with business and business want's cheap labor.

unlikely scotus will allow the disputed provisions of 1070 to ever go into effect.