December 12, 2011 10:49AM # Supreme Court Takes Up Arizona Immigration Law By [Ilya Shapiro](https://www.cato.org/people/ilya-shapiro) --- SHARE The Supreme Court has agreed to review *Arizona v. United States*, the case regarding SB 1070, the Arizona law (only) four sections of which have been enjoined by the lower courts: requiring police to check the immigration status of anyone they have lawfully detained whom they have reasonable suspicion to believe may be in the country illegally; making it a state crime to violate federal alien registration laws; making it a state crime for illegal aliens to apply for work, solicit work in a public place, or work as an independent contractor; and permitting warrantless arrests where the police have probable cause to believe that a suspect has committed a crime that makes him subject to deportation. For my previous analysis of SB 1070 and the legal challenges to it, see [here](https://www.cato.org/a-legal-analysis-of-the-new-arizona-immigration-law/), [here](https://www.cato.org/update-on-the-arizona-immigration-issue/), [here](https://www.cato.org/immigration-law-ruling-half-right-but-crucially-wrong/), and [here](https://www.cato.org/arizona-immigration-decision-underlines-need-for-fundamental-reform/). By taking up this case, the Supreme Court is wisely nipping in the bud the proliferation of state laws aimed at addressing our broken immigration system. One way or another, states will know how far they can go in addressing issues relating to illegal immigrants, whether the concern is crime, employment opportunities (providing or restricting them), registration requirements, or even so-called sanctuary cities. Of course, states wouldn’t be getting into this mess if the federal government — elected officials of both parties — hadn’t abdicated its responsibility to fix a system that serves nobody’s interests: not big business or small business, not the rich or the poor, not the most or least educated, not the economy or national security, and certainly not the average taxpayer. For their part, SB 1070 and related laws in Alabama, Georgia, and elsewhere are (with small exception) constitutional — the state laws are merely mirroring federal law, not conflicting with it or otherwise intruding on federal authority over immigration — but bad public policy. (For more on both these conclusions, read my [*SCOTUSblog* essay](https://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=13354) from last summer.) What this country needs is a comprehensive reform that obviates the sort of ineffectual half-measures the states are left with given Congress’s shameless refusal to act. It’s not very often that Cato calls for the federal government to do something, but the immigration system is quite possibly the most screwed-up part of the federal government — which of itself is a significant statement coming from someone at Cato — and one that is so incredibly counterproductive to American liberty and prosperity. The Court will hear *Arizona v. United States* in the spring. For more immigration-reform developments, see [this note](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203833104577070552739470434.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop) in today’s *Wall Street Journal* and [my blogpost](https://www.cato.org/what-immigration-reform-would-look-like/) on Utah’s plan, which the federal government has also since sued to enjoin. ##### Related Tags [Constitutional Law](https://www.cato.org/constitutional-law), [Trade Policy](https://www.cato.org/trade-policy), [Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies](https://www.cato.org/herbert-stiefel-center-trade-policy-studies), [Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies](https://www.cato.org/robert-levy-center-constitutional-studies) [![Creative Commons License](/build/cato_2020/images/creative-commons.svg)](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) This work is licensed under a [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/).