Provisions of the Arizona Law That Impose Penalties on Unauthorized Alien Workers Also Enjoined

Written by Gary K. Silberman

The next section enjoined by the court criminalizes any attempt to obtain work or any work as an employee or independent contractor by an unauthorized alien. The United States argued that, like other sections of this law, this provision was preempted by federal law, in that Congress chose to not impose criminal penalties for these actions. Arizona claimed that states possess broad authority to regulate employment so as to protect workers. The state’s argument was bolstered by a Ninth Circuit decision holding that where a state chooses to sanction employers who hire unauthorized workers, a presumption exists that federal preemption does not apply. [Read more]

State Penalties for Violation of the INA

Written by Gary K. Silberman, Esq.

Section 3 of the Arizona statute makes it a misdemeanor to willfully fail to complete or carry an alien registration document, which basically creates a state crime for a violation of a federal law. The unconstitutionality of this section was easy to determine. The Supreme Court has already found that the “power to restrict, limit, regulate, and register aliens” is not a power to be shared by the states and the federal government. [Read more]

Immigration Status Checks

By: Attorney Gary K. Silberman, Esq.

Section 2(B) of S.B. 1070 provides that when a lawful stop, detention or arrest is made by an Arizona law enforcement official and reasonable suspicion exists that the person is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt must be made to determine the immigration status of the person. The court found that this provision should be enjoined, based on a number of reasons. [Read more]

Judge Enjoins Arizona from Enforcing Most of New Immigration Law

Written By: Gary K. Silberman, Esq.

The day before the Arizona immigration law was set to go into effect, a federal judge prevented the key provisions of that law. The order that forbids Arizona from enforcing that law is a preliminary injunction, which means that the court will still have a trial on the constitutionality of the law, but until then the controversial sections of the law are unenforceable. In order to enter a preliminary injunction, the court had to find (1) that the plaintiffs (the parties that brought the suit) are likely to win at trial, (2) that if the law went into effect, there was a substantial chance that irreparable harm would occur, (3) that the balance of equities tips in its favor and (4) that a preliminary injunction is in the public interest.

Over the next several blogs, we’ll review the provisions that were enjoined and take a look at why the judge found that those provisions were problematic enough to warrant an order preventing them from going into effect until a trial can take place.

Effective Immigration Control

Written By: Gary K. Silberman, Esq.

On the heels of yesterday’s post about the the Arizona immigration law and the controversy surrounding it, here is an example of the federal government’s efforts to focus immigration enforcement on those areas that are likely to have a greater impact on immigration control, rather than focusing on those areas that create controversy and publicity. [Read more]

Arizona’s Immigration Law

Written By: Gary K. Silberman, Esq.

Arizona’s harsh new immigration law is set to take effect in three days, unless it is stopped by a federal judge who has heard the preliminary arguments in the many lawsuits filed by opponents of the law. [Read more]

« Previous Page — Next Page »