Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting

Last updated
Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued December 8, 2010
Decided May 26, 2011
Full case nameChamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al., Petitioners v. Michael B. Whiting, et al.
Docket no. 09–115
Citations563 U.S. 582 ( more )
131 S. Ct. 1968; 179 L. Ed. 2d 1031
Case history
PriorDismissed for lack of jurisdiction sub. nom.Arizona Contractors Ass'n, Inc. v. Napolitano (Arizona Contractors I), 526 F. Supp. 2d 968 (D. Ariz. 2007); refiled, judgement for defendants sub nom. Arizona Contractors Ass'n, Inc. v. Candelaria (Arizona Contractors II), 534 F. Supp. 2d 1036 (D. Ariz. 2008); affirmed sub. nom. Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. v. Napolitano, 558 F.3d 856 (9th. Cir. 2009); cert. granted, 561 U.S. 1024(2010)
Holding
Arizona law instructing courts to suspend or revoke the business licenses of in-state employers that employ unauthorized aliens does not violate the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas  · Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Stephen Breyer  · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor  · Elena Kagan
Case opinions
MajorityRoberts, joined by Scalia, Kennedy, Alito; Thomas (Parts I, II–A, and III–A; concurred in judgment)
DissentBreyer, joined by Ginsburg
DissentSotomayor
Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, 563 U.S. 582 (2011), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that upheld an Arizona state law suspending or revoking business licenses of businesses that hire illegal aliens. [1]

Contents

The case dealt with the question of whether the Legal Arizona Workers Act was invalid under federal statutes, in particular the Immigration Reform and Control Act. On May 26, 2011, the Supreme Court ruled, in a 5-3 decision, that the Legal Arizona Workers Act was not preempted by federal legislation. [2] Justices Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Alito and Thomas formed the majority opinion, and Justices Breyer, Ginsburg and Sotomayor formed the minority opinion, with Sotomayor filling her own dissenting opinion. Justice Kagan was recused in the case because she had a prior role in the case from her former role as Solicitor General of the United States.

Background

"The Legal Arizona Workers Act allows superior courts in Arizona to suspend or revoke business licenses of employers who knowingly or intentionally hire unauthorized aliens" and also "makes participation in E-Verify (a system that determines eligibility for employment based on information from I-9 forms and U.S. Department of Homeland Security and Social Security Administration records) mandatory for all employers." The main questions presented in this case were the following:

The Supreme Court had to determine whether the federal law that states companies cannot be punished for hiring undocumented workers unknowingly, except in cases of licensing, would prevent a state, such as Arizona, from having a law imposing sanctions on employers that hired undocumented workers.

Majority opinion

The majority ruled that federal law "does not prevent Arizona from revoking the business licenses of state companies that knowingly hire undocumented workers, or from requiring employers in the state to use a federal electronic system to check that their workers are authorized to work in the United States." [4] During the oral arguments, Justice Scalia, in particular, defended the states' authority in questions of enforcement of immigration laws, given what "he perceived as a failure of the federal government" to enforce laws to keep undocumented workers out of the country. [5] In addition, since the federal statute indicated that the state government were allowed to take action "through licensing and similar laws," Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito indicated that Arizona's law was valid under the federal law because that part of the federal statute was very broad.

In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts accepted the arguments that the state of Arizona had made about how the initiative was narrow and closely tracked and was modeled after the objectives of the 1986 federal law. [6] He also indicated that the Arizona law was the "route least likely to cause tension with federal law" and that the saving clause provided "a licensing exemption to general preemption of state worker laws."

Even though Justice Kennedy joined the majority opinion, during the oral arguments he appeared to agree with some of the arguments that were made in the dissenting opinion. On an argument Justice Ginsburg made about "an anomaly" that Arizona is forbidden by federal law to impose a fine for hiring an undocumented worker, but Arizona has the ability to revoke a license to do business, as well as on the question of the Arizona E-Verify provisions, Justice Kennedy indicated that the E-Verify provisions "is almost a classic example of doing something inconsistent with the federal requirement," given that the federal law indicates that the federal E-Verify is a voluntary system, but the Arizona E-Verify provisions make the program mandatory to a greater extent. [7]

Dissenting opinions

Justice Breyer, dissenting, had indicated during oral arguments that he believed that "Congress… had taken 'an absolutely balanced' approach" in an attempt to ensure undocumented workers were not able to get jobs but make sure as well that businesses did not discriminate in hiring to avoid the risk of losing its license.

Also dissenting, Justice Sotomayor indicated that the majority's reading of the exception "cannot be reconciled" with the rest of what Congress enacted in 1986: "Congress could not plausibly have intended… for the saving clause to operate in the way the majority reads it to do."

Along that line, Justices Sotomayor and Breyer argued that the Arizona law went far beyond the "scope of federal control" and that it would "actively frustrate federal efforts and compromise the need for uniformity in dealing with unlawful aliens." Given the Arizona law created new enforcement mechanisms in handling of undocumented workers, it prevented uniform policies, which went against the spirit of the federal law: to have uniform legislation.

Reactions

Some argue that Supreme Court sent a "strong signal" that the states will be afforded the ability to control and experiment with laws involving undocumented workers who live and work with each given state, given the Court's majority indicated that the licensing exception to the federal law was a very broad exception. In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor indicated that the majority had "turned states loose to determine for themselves whether someone has employed an unauthorized alien so long as they do so in conjunction with licensing sanctions." [8]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Alien Tort Statute</span> US legislation

The Alien Tort Statute, also called the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA), is a section in the United States Code that gives federal courts jurisdiction over lawsuits filed by foreign nationals for torts committed in violation of international law. It was first introduced by the Judiciary Act of 1789 and is one of the oldest federal laws still in effect in the U.S.

Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, 535 U.S. 137 (2002), is a United States labor law decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States denied an award of back pay to an undocumented worker, José Castro, who had been laid off for participating in a union organizing campaign at Hoffman Plastics Compounds plant, along with several other employees. The case was originally filed against Hoffman by Dionisio Gonzalez, an organizer with the United Steelworkers.

Preston v. Ferrer, 552 U.S. 346 (2008), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held, 8–1, that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) overrules state laws declaring that certain disputes must be resolved by a state administrative agency.

Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case involving Arizona's SB 1070, a state law intended to increase the powers of local law enforcement that wished to enforce federal immigration laws. The issue is whether the law usurps the federal government's authority to regulate immigration laws and enforcement. The Court ruled that sections 3, 5(C), and 6 of S. B. 1070 were preempted by federal law but left other parts of the law intact, including a provision that allowed law enforcement to investigate a person's immigration status.

Bruesewitz v. Wyeth LLC, 562 U.S. 223 (2011), is a United States Supreme Court case that decided whether a section of the Vaccine Act of 1986 preempts all vaccine design defect claims against vaccine manufacturers.

Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Association, 505 U.S. 88 (1992), is a United States labor law case of the United States Supreme Court. The Court determined that federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations preempted various Illinois provisions for licensing workers who handled hazardous waste materials.

Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 569 U.S. 108 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court decision in which the court found that the presumption against extraterritoriality applies to claims under the Alien Tort Claims Act. According to the Court's majority opinion, "it would reach too far to say that mere corporate presence suffices" to displace the presumption against extraterritoriality when all the alleged wrongful conduct takes place outside the United States.

Moncrieffe v. Holder, 569 U.S. 184 (2013), is a United States Supreme Court decision in which the court ruled in a 7–2 decision that "social sharing of a small amount of marijuana" by a legal immigrant does not constitute aggravated felony and so does not require mandatory deportation.

Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc., 570 U.S. 205 (2013), also known as Alliance for Open Society I, was a United States Supreme Court decision in which the court ruled that conditions imposed on recipients of certain federal grants amounted to a restriction of freedom of speech and violated the First Amendment.

Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, 572 U.S. 291 (2014), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning affirmative action and race- and sex-based discrimination in public university admissions. In a 6-2 decision, the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause does not prevent states from enacting bans on affirmative action in education.

Zubik v. Burwell, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a case before the United States Supreme Court on whether religious institutions other than churches should be exempt from the contraceptive mandate, a regulation adopted by the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that requires non-church employers to cover certain contraceptives for their female employees. Churches are already exempt under those regulations. On May 16, 2016, the Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals ruling in Zubik v. Burwell and the six cases it had consolidated under that title and returned them to their respective courts of appeals for reconsideration.

Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, No. 16-499, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a case from the United States Supreme Court which addressed the issue of corporate liability under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS). Plaintiffs alleged that Arab Bank facilitated terrorist attacks by transferring funds to terrorist groups in the Middle East, some of which passed through Arab Bank's offices in New York City.

Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), is a landmark United States Supreme Court civil rights case in which the Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees against discrimination because they are gay or transgender.

Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. Warren, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case from the October 2018 term. In a split opinion, the Court held that the state of Virginia's ban on uranium mining did not conflict with the Atomic Energy Act.

Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving whether the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which limits habeas corpus judicial review of the decisions of immigration officers, violates the Suspension Clause of Article One of the U.S. Constitution. In the 7–2 opinion, the Court ruled that the law does not violate the Suspension Clause.

Kansas v. Garcia, 589 U.S. ___ (2020), was a case of the United States Supreme Court that was decided, by a 5–4 majority, in 2020. The case concerned whether it was lawful for a State to enforce laws criminalizing the making of fraudulent representations by aliens who were not authorized to work in connection with obtaining a job; the Court held that it was.

De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351 (1976), was a case decided by the US Supreme Court on February 25, 1976, that challenged Section 2805(a) of the California Labor Code.

Garland v. Gonzalez, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to immigration detention.

Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to immigration detention.

United States v. Hansen, 599 U.S. ___ (2023), was a United States Supreme Court case about whether a federal law that criminalizes encouraging or inducing illegal immigration is unconstitutionally overbroad, violating the First Amendment right to free speech.

References

  1. ↑ "High court backs Arizona immigration law that punishes businesses". CNN .
  2. ↑ 1. LawMemo, Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Whiting, http://www.lawmemo.com/supreme/case/Chamber2/
  3. ↑ 4. LawMemo, Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Whiting, http://www.lawmemo.com/supreme/case/Chamber2/
  4. ↑ 5. Supreme Court of the United States blog, Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Whiting, http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/chamber-of-commerce-of-the-united-states-v-candelaria/
  5. ↑ 6. Lyle Denniston, On aliens, Arizona may win — for now, SCOTUSblog (December 8, 2010, 1:56 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/12/on-aliens-arizona-may-win-for-now/
  6. ↑ 8. Lyle Denniston, Opinion recap: Shared role on aliens’ jobs, SCOTUSblog (May. 26, 2011, 12:51 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/05/opinion-recap-shared-role-on-aliens-jobs/
  7. ↑ 11. Lyle Denniston, On aliens, Arizona may win — for now, SCOTUSblog (December 8, 2010, 1:56 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/12/on-aliens-arizona-may-win-for-now/
  8. ↑ 16. Lyle Denniston, Opinion recap: Shared role on aliens' jobs, SCOTUSblog (May. 26, 2011, 12:51 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2011/05/opinion-recap-shared-role-on-aliens-jobs/
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.