Chamber Of Commerce v. Whiting

563 U.S. 582 (2011)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Federal immigration law expressly preempts “any State or local law imposing civil or criminal sanctions (other than through licensing and similar laws) upon those who employ . . . unauthorized aliens.” 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(h)(2). D enacted LAWA where the licenses of state employers that knowingly or intentionally employ unauthorized aliens may be, and in certain circumstances must be, suspended or revoked. LAWA also requires that all Arizona employers use a federal electronic verification system to confirm that the workers they employ are legally authorized workers. If an individual files a complaint alleging that an employer has hired an unauthorized alien, the attorney general or the county attorney first verifies the employee's work authorization with the Federal Government pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1373(c). The D law expressly prohibits state, county, or local officials from attempting “to independently make a final determination on whether an alien is authorized to work in the United States.” If the § 1373(c) inquiry reveals that a worker is an unauthorized alien, the attorney general or the county attorney must notify the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials, notify local law enforcement, and bring an action against the employer. Good-faith compliance with the federal I-9 process provides employers prosecuted by D with an affirmative defense. Ps filed a pre-enforcement suit in federal court against those charged with administering the Arizona law. Ps claim that D's law's provisions allowing the suspension and revocation of business licenses for employing unauthorized aliens were both expressly and impliedly preempted by federal immigration law and that the mandatory use of E-Verify was impliedly preempted. The District Court found that the plain language of IRCA's pre-emption clause did not preempt D's because the state law does no more than impose licensing conditions on businesses operating within the State. The court concluded that although Congress had made E-Verify voluntary at the national level, it had expressed no intent to prevent States from mandating participation. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.