Immigration and Citizenship

Justices Skeptical Of Aspects Of Arizona’s SB 1070 Law

Echoing CAC Brief, Constitution’s Text, History and Structure Key Issues In Argument

Washington, DC – After attending today’s arguments at the Supreme Court over the constitutionality of Arizona’s SB 1070 anti-immigration law, Constitutional Accountability Center released the following statement.

CAC President Doug Kendall said, “Solicitor General Verilli effectively explained why SB 1070 threatens the federal government’s foreign policy and immigration authority, and why the law conflicts with the Founders’ design. The Constitution demands ‘uniform’ federal rules on naturalization and immigration, and Arizona’s law fundamentally disrupts this uniformity.”

CAC Chief Counsel Elizabeth Wydra said, “SB 1070 is a single-minded, aggressive ‘attrition through enforcement’ policy that directly conflicts with the Constitution’s delegation of immigration authority to the federal government.  The nation’s Founders unmistakably gave the national government the power to speak for the United States on immigration matters and foreign affairs,” Wydra continued, “and it appeared that a majority of the justices had problems with at least some provisions of the Arizona law.  Hopefully, the justices will recognize that all of the challenged provisions should fail for the same reason: Arizona does not have the right to put in place its own ‘attrition through enforcement’ immigration policy.”

#

Resources:

*  CAC’s “friend of the court” brief in Arizona v. United States:  http://theusconstitution.org/cases/briefs/arizona-v-us-us-v-arizona/arizona-v-us

*  Elizabeth Wydra, Huffington Post (front page), “Arizona’s ‘Show Me Your Papers’ Law Gets Its Day in Court — and Congress,” April 24, 2012:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elizabeth-b-wydra/arizonas-show-me-your-pap_b_1449460.html

*  Elizabeth Wydra, New York Times, “The Constitution Settles It,” April 22, 2012: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/04/22/how-states-should-approach-immigration/the-constitution-limits-states-immigration-policy

##

Constitutional Accountability Center (www.theusconstitution.org) is a think tank, public interest law firm, and action center dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text and history.

More from Immigration and Citizenship

Rule of Law
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Comey v. Department of Justice

In Comey v. Department of Justice, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York is considering whether the Attorney General can fire an Assistant U.S. Attorney in contravention of legal protections...
Civil and Human Rights
July 18, 2026

Arnie Arnesen Attitude July 16 2026

Attitude with Arnie Arnesen
CAC’s David H. Gans joined The Attitude with Arnie Arnesen to discuss the Reconstruction Amendments. Listen...
Access to Justice
----- Supreme Court -----

Crowther v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia

In Crowther v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, the Supreme Court is considering whether employees of federally funded educational institutions can bring Title IX suits for sex discrimination.
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Wridt v. City of New York

In Wridt v. City of New York, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York is considering whether the NYPD’s mass surveillance system is unconstitutional.
Federal Courts and Nominations
July 16, 2026

CAC Release: Todd Blanche’s Record Disqualifies Him From Serving as America’s Lawyer

WASHINGTON, DC – In response to this week’s confirmation hearings on Todd Blanche’s nomination to...
By: Praveen Fernandes
Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

DHS Probationary Employees 1 Class v. Department of Homeland Security

In DHS Probationary Employees 1 Class v. Department of Homeland Security, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is considering whether the Trump Administration’s efforts to unilaterally reshape the federal government through...