Search  |  Login  |  Register

By Jay Sekulow1317603634000

An important decision by the U.S. Supreme Court - a victory for states, like Arizona, that take state legislative action to protect their borders and citizens.

It is a closely watched immigration case.  And, today, in a 5-3 decision in the case of Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, the high court concluded that an Arizona employer-sanctions law that penalizes businesses that knowingly hire illegal immigrants is constitutional.

We had filed an amicus brief backing the Arizona law arguing exactly what the high court concluded.  Chief Justice John Roberts correctly concluded that the Arizona Workers Act 'does not conflict with federal immigration law.'

This decision represents an important victory for Arizona and other states that desire to protect their borders and citizens

The Supreme Court decision provides a realistic roadmap for states to take appropriate action in enacting legislation that is constitutional. It's clear that states can take action that compliments federal immigration law without violating it. The decision affirms that the Arizona law represents a valid and constitutional exercise of Arizona's police powers.

As the Chief Justice concluded in the majority opinion:

"Arizona has taken the route least likely to cause tension with federal law," wrote Roberts. "It relies solely on the federal government's own determination of who is an unauthorized alien, and it requires Arizona employers to use the federal government's own system for checking employee status."

In our amicus brief, posted here, we argued: "State laws, like the Legal Arizona Workers Act, that mirror federal immigration provisions and incorporate federal standards promote national policy and should not be preempted."

Our brief also noted that "illegal immigration is a serious problem" and argues that the "federal government has proved inadequate to the tasks of enforcing current immigration laws and building consensus toward needed immigration reform" leaving states to "cope on their own."

You can read the entire Supreme Court opinion here.

Latest in

Constitution 1, impatient Obama 0

By Jay Sekulow1424204298896

It’s still early in the legal battle over President Obama’s sweeping immigration actions, but so far the score is clear: The Constitution 1, an impatient president, 0. Last night, Federal District Court Judge Andrew Hanen ordered a temporary halt to President Obama’s so-called “Deferred Action for...

read more

Court Halts Obama’s Executive Action

By Jay Sekulow1424192421808

Just before midnight last night, a federal court issued an order temporarily halting President Obama’s illegal Executive action on immigration. The federal court agreed with our amicus brief – on behalf of 68 Members of Congress and over 70,000 Americans – that President Obama’s actions violated...

read more

Congress Must Preserve Constitution

By Jay Sekulow1417534282235

It’s unconstitutional. It’s reckless. It’s lawless. All these things have been said about President Obama’s executive action on immigration—a breathtaking order that not only changes laws passed by Congress, but will likely send millions of mostly low-skill workers flooding into a workplace that is...

read more

Executive Imperialism

By David French1416524300700

If you’ve heard it once, you’ve heard it a thousand times — divided government means “gridlock.” With Congress in the hands of one party and the presidency in the hands of the other, nothing gets done. In fact, there’s an argument that voters see this alleged “gridlock” as a feature of divided...

read more