Can States Enforce Federal Immigration Law?

[Pangloss]

The Obama administration says it's going to file a lawsuit against Arizona over its new immigration law on the basis that only the Federal government can deal with matters of immigration.

 

But the courts have said that states can enforce immigration law. Here are a number of appellate decisions that were not (for whatever reason) overturned by the Supreme Court.

 

In 1983, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit -- you read that right, the Ninth Circuit -- concluded, in Gonzales v. City of Peoria, 722 F.2d 468, that, “Although the regulation of immigration is unquestionably an exclusive federal power, it is clear that this power does not preempt every state activity affecting aliens.” Rather, when “state enforcement activities do not impair federal regulatory interests concurrent enforcement is authorized.” The Court accordingly held “that federal law does not preclude local enforcement of the criminal provisions” of federal immigration law.

 

In 1984, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit likewise ruled, in United States v. Salinas-Calderon, that “[a] state trooper has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations.”

 

Fifteen years later, in 1999, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reaffirmed its position, in United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3rd 1294, stating, “this court has long held that state and local law enforcement officers are empowered to arrest for violations of federal law, as long as such arrest is authorized by state law.”

 

In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled again, in United States v. Santana-Garcia, 264 F.3rd 1188, “that state law enforcement officers within the Tenth Circuit ‘have the general authority to investigate and make arrests for violations of federal immigration laws,’ and that federal law as currently written does nothing ‘to displace . . . state or local authority to arrest individuals violating federal immigration laws.’ On the contrary, the Court said, “federal law ‘evinces a clear invitation from Congress for state and local agencies to participate in the process of enforcing federal immigration laws.’”

 

In 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held, in United States v. Rodriguez-Arreola, 270 F.3rd 611, that a state trooper did not violate the defendant’s rights by questioning him about his immigration status after pulling him over for speeding.

 

In 2002, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held, in United States v. Favela-Favela, 41 Fed. Appx. 185, that a state trooper did not violate the defendant’s rights by asking questions about his immigration status, after pulling the defendant over for a traffic violation and noticing there were 20 people in the van the defendant was driving.

 

In 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit confirmed again, in United States v. Hernandez-Dominguez, 1 Fed. Appx. 827, that "[a] state trooper [who has executed a lawful stop] has general investigatory authority to inquire into possible immigration violations."

 

in 2008, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri held, in Gray v. City of Valley Park, 2008 U.S. Dist LEXIS 7238, affirmed 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 12075, that federal law did not preempt a local ordinance suspending the business license of any business that hires illegal aliens.

 

In 2008, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey concluded, in Rojas v. City of New Brunswick, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57974, that, “As a general matter, state and local law enforcement officers are not precluded from enforcing federal statutes. Where state enforcement activities do not impair federal regulatory interests concurrent enforcement activity is authorized.” The Court accordingly held that a city and its police department had authority to investigate and arrest people for possible violations of federal immigration laws.

 

 

And in this 2005 Supreme Court decision, we find a ruling related to the questioning of an individual on his immigration status by a local law enforcement official:

 

In 2005, the United States Supreme Court held, in Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93, that police officers who handcuffed a gang member while they executed a search warrant for weapons, did not violate her rights by questioning her about her immigration status. The Court explained, “[E]ven when officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may generally ask questions of that individual; ask to examine the individual's identification; and request consent to search his or her luggage."

 

So why is the administration bringing this case, exactly? Could this be just a play to the base, knowing that they'll lose and can then blame the courts instead of taking the heat themselves?

 

Here's a source for the above quotes, and the cases can be found in various sources including the Wikipedia.

http://web.mac.com/waltermoore/WalterMooreSays.com/Blog/Entries/2010/4/30_Arizona_Police_Can_Enforce_Federal_Immigration_Law.html

[Sisyphus]

But Arizona has a state immigration law. The issue isn't just with state agencies helping to enforce federal law.

 

That doesn't mean it isn't just a play to the base like you suggest, but it doesn't seem like any of those are direct precedents.

[D H]

But Arizona has a state immigration law. The issue isn't just with state agencies helping to enforce federal law.

You need to read the list of cases that Pangloss cited. The third one is particularly relevant here (emphasis mine):

Fifteen years later, in 1999, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reaffirmed its position, in United States v. Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3rd 1294, stating, “this court has long held that state and local law enforcement officers are empowered to arrest for violations of federal law,

as long as such arrest is authorized by state law

.”

[Sisyphus]

Is that the same as making it a crime under state law?

[Pangloss]

Whether Arizona has essentially passed its own immigration law will be something that ultimately the courts will have to decide, but it's noteworthy that they specifically tried not to do that, and attempted to only act in a manner that supports the existing federal law, not to create their own immigration policy. They're not trying to influence the number of people who can legally immigrate to the US, they're simply attempting to enforce the border under policies determined by the country as a whole.

 

So even if this law is struck down, it seems to me that these decisions indicate it could be re-written in such a manner as to make that more clear, and thereby continue to do what they want to do (and what the Federal government seems either ill-equipped or less than completely willing to do).