Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Bench Statement - Justice Scalia - Arizona v. U.S. - 11-182 - June 25, 2012 - U.S. Supreme Court

Bench Statement - Justice Scalia - Arizona v. U.S. - 11-182 - June 25, 2012 - U.S. Supreme Court

Ratings: (0)|Views: 6|Likes:
Published by Erika Wayne

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Erika Wayne on Jun 29, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

06/29/2012

pdf

text

original

 
June
25,
2012
Justice
AntoninScalia
BenchSta tement
No.11-182
-
Arizona
v.
United
States
For
almost
a
century
after
the
Constitution
wasratified,
there
were
nofederal
immigrationlawsex ceptone
of
theinfbmousAlien
andSeditionActs
thatwas
discredited
andallowed
toexpire.
In
that
firstcentury
all
regulation
of
immigrationwas
by
the
States,
which
excluded
variouscategories
of
would-beimmigrants,including
convicted
criminalsandindigents.Indeed,manyquestioned
whether
thefederal
government
hadany
power
tocontrolimmigration—thatwasJeffersonsand
Madison’s
objectiontotheAlienAct.The
States’
powerto
controlimmigration,
however,ha s
alwaysbeenaccepted,and
is
indeedrefl ected
in
some
provisions
of
the
Constitution.Theprovisionthat
[tJhe
Citizens
of
each
Stateshall
be
entitledto
all
Privileges
and
Immunities
of
Citizens
in
the
several
States”
was
a
revision
of
theprovisioninthe
Articles
of
Confederationwhich
gavethose
privilegesandimmunitiesto“inhabitants”
of
each
State.
ft
was
revisedbecause
givingthat
protection
tomereinhabitantswould
allowthe
immigrationpolicies
of
one
Stateto
be
imposedonthe
others.
Even
thatrevision
wasnotthoughtto
be
enough,bec ausethe
Stateswerenotwillingto
have
their
immigrationpolicies
determinedbythe
cit
izenshi
 
requirements
of
other
States.
Hence
the
Naturalization
Clause
of
the
Constitution,
which
enables
the
federal
government
to
control
whocan
be
a
citizen.
Of
course
the
federal
power
to
control
immigration
was
ultimately
accepted,
and
rightly
so.
Butwheredoesthatpower
come
from?
Jefferson
and
Madison
were
correct
that
itis
nowhere
tobe
found
in
the
Constitution’s
enumeration
of
federal
powers.
Thefederal
power
overimmigration
cannotplausibly
derive
from
the
NaturalizationClause.
Not
only
does
the
power
to
confer
citizenship
have
nothing
todo
withthe
power
to
exclude
immigrants,
but,
as
I
havedescribed,
the
NaturalizationClausewas
a
vindication
of
state
ratherthan
federalpower
over
immigration.Federal
power
overimmigration
comesfrom
thesamesource
as
state
powerover
immigration:
it
is
an
inherent
attribute—perhaps
the
fundamentalattribute—
of
sovereignty.
The
States,
of
course,
are
sovereign,
the
United
States
being
a
Union
of
sovereign
States.
To
be
sovereign
is
necessarily
to
possess
the
power
to
exclude
unwanted
persons
andthings
from
the
territory.
That
is
why
the
Constitution’s
prohibition
of
a
State’s
imposingduties
on
imports
made
an
exception
for
“what
may
be
absolutelynecessary
for
executing
it’s
inspection
Laws.”Thus,this
Court’s
cases
have
held
that
the
Statesretain
an
inherent
power
to
exclude.
That
power
can
be
limited
only
by
the
Constitution
or
by
laws
enacted
pursuant
to
the
Constituti
on,
The
Constitution,
as
we
have
seen,
does
notlimit
the
 
3
States’
power
overimmigrationbut
tothe
contraryvindicates
it.
So
thequestionin
this
case
is
whetherthelaws
of
the
UnitedStatesforbidwhat
Arizonahas
done.
Our
caseshave
held,withregard
to
claimed
federal
abridgment
bylaw
of
another
inherent
sovereign
power
of
theStates—their
sovereignimmunityfrom
suit—that
the
abridgementmust
be
“unequivocallyexpressed.”The
same
requirement
must
applyhere;
and
there
is
no
unequivocalcongressionalprohibition
of
what
Arizona
has
done.
It
is
not
enoughtosay
that
the
federalimmigrationlaws
implicitly“occupy
thefield.”
No
federal
law
says
that
theStates
cannot
have
theirownimmigration
law.
Of
course
theSupremacyClause
establishes
that
federal
immigration
law
is
supreme,
so
thatthe
States’
immigration
laws
cannotconflictwith
it—cannot
admit
thosewhom
federallawwould
exclude
or
excludethosewhom
federallaw
would
admit
But
that
has
not
occurred
here.
Arizona
has
attached
consequences
under
state
law
to
acts
that
are
unlawful
under
federal
law—illegal
aliens’presenceinArizona
and
theirfailure
to
maintainfederal
alien
registration.
It
isnot
at
allunusual
forstate
law
to
impose
additional
penaltiesorattachadditional
consequences
to
actsthatare
unlawfulunderfederallaw—state
drug
lawsare
agood
example.
Thatdoesnotconifict
withfederal
law.
In
sum,
Arizona
is
entitled
to
imposeadditional
penalties
andconsequences
for
violations
of
thefederalimmigration
laws,
because
itis
enaiiledto
have
itsown

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->