Federal vs. State Immigration Laws

While some states expand benefits and protections for immigrants and others impose restrictions, federal courts often review these laws to ensure they do not overstep constitutional boundaries.

The rules established in 1952 with the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) established the framework the government follows today. But the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 plays a part in curbing illegal immigration. It denied welfare benefits to immigrants without proper documentation. It also strengthened sanctions against employers who hire them.

The U.S. Congress controls all immigration-related regulations. But the White House is in charge of enforcing immigration laws. The INA dictates most aspects of federal immigration law, including visas and other parts of citizenship status. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) manages most immigrant-related matters.

Immigration rules at both the state and federal level continue to evolve. Anyone facing an immigration issue should speak with a local immigration attorney for up‑to‑date guidance.

Jurisdiction and the Supremacy Clause

The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently upheld the federal government’s jurisdiction over immigration law. SCOTUS has overruled attempts by state legislatures to single out immigrants. The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution generally means that federal laws trump state laws.

But there are exceptions to this. While states must remain within specific parameters, they have relative degrees of latitude in their laws. States have certain freedoms in determining the laws of their own jurisdictions. For example, California provides more generous benefits to immigrants. It is a “sanctuary state.” But Texas has been notoriously unfavorable to immigrants, restricting benefits migrants can access. 

Many states have passed legislation that limits immigrants’ access to public benefits. Many have directed state and local police to check the legal immigration statuses of arrestees. Lawmakers pressing for immigration-related state laws typically cite security concerns, limited resources, and a lack of federal enforcement.

Are such state laws constitutional? While state lawmakers have articulated a genuine interest in limiting illegal immigration, there is no clear line in the sand. See State Immigration Laws for a regularly updated, state-by-state directory.

Immigration Laws at the State Level

Perhaps the most notorious state attempt to regulate immigration is Arizona’s S.B. 1070, which became law in 2010. The U.S. Dept. of Justice (DOJ) stated in a brief that Arizona lawmakers “crossed a constitutional line” with the new law. A federal judge blocked four of the most controversial elements. These included a requirement that police check the immigration status of anyone they stop or suspect is in the state illegally.

Other states have passed laws with similar police directives, including Oklahoma and Utah.

State immigration laws also impact how immigrants interact with state systems and benefits. For example, many state laws:

• Mandate employers to use E-Verify to check job applicants’ employment eligibility
• Restrict or allow in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants
• Require identification for voting and impose restrictions on public benefits
• Place restrictions on public benefits, including SNAP (formerly food stamps) and Medicaid
• Establish rules for non-emergency medical care at state clinics

Lawmakers in some states directly challenged certain parts of the 14th Amendment. They have challenged the provision granting automatic citizenship to those born on U.S. soil.

Examples of states that have done this are Arizona and Indiana. Proponents of such laws argue that the Amendment’s interpretation should be narrowed to exclude children who are born in the U.S. to immigrants without proper documentation. The U.S. Supreme Court often reviews these controversial bills.

The United States is a federalist system. In other words, states have some freedom to determine their laws. But state governments still must remain within specific parameters in the laws they pass and implement.

Challenges to State Immigration Laws

Immigrant rights groups often challenge these state laws affecting immigration. Civil liberties groups or the federal government sometimes challenge them, too. They especially challenge laws that require proof of citizenship or legal residence. Typically, these lawsuits can cause racial profiling. Requirements that law enforcement checks the immigration status of suspects have also been challenged for similar reasons.

Critics say laws requiring a photo ID for voting violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965. For example, the South Carolina Hispanic Leadership Council once filed a lawsuit against South Carolina. The suit alleged that Senate Bill 20, one of the state’s immigration laws, was unconstitutional. Among their grievances, plaintiffs claimed the law’s rule that state and local police check the immigration status of any person stopped was unconstitutional. The law passed, but lawmakers removed that provision.

The federal government has challenged many of these state laws based on jurisdiction. It has claimed that a “patchwork” of different immigration laws would not fix the country’s immigration system. A DOJ brief accompanying its challenge of the Arizona law included the following statement: “Setting immigration policy and enforcing immigration laws is a national responsibility. Seeking to address the issue through a patchwork of state laws will only create more problems than it solves.”

Alabama law (HB 56), similar to Arizona’s S.B. 1070, also was reviewed in a federal court. But the judge upheld the provision requiring legal status checks during routine traffic stops. Still, lawmakers limited some provisions of the law. They removed conditions that were either unworkable or that had unintended consequences.

Does Local Law Enforcement Assist Federal Immigration Agencies?

Local law enforcement agencies often partner with federal agencies that oversee immigration. Law enforcement officials in various states help Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrest immigrants and migrants without documentation.

Some states restrict such partnerships, though. As mentioned earlier, California has done just this. As a “sanctuary state,” it has created policies unfavorable to ICE’s interests in enforcement within the state. Texas and Florida have tended to do the opposite. Greater cooperation with federal authorities takes place in those states as a result. You can read more about the partnerships between federal and local authorities at the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) website.

DHS addresses partnerships related to fighting terrorism on that linked page. But such cooperation can still affect even migrants who have only peaceful reasons for being in the United States. With greater cooperation between federal and local law enforcement comes a greater focus on immigrants in any state. It also means that more resources are devoted in these partnerships to handling people without proper documentation in the United States.

Many local governments work hand-in-hand with the federal government on immigration-related issues. This type of cooperation can heavily impact immigration enforcement in any state.

An Attorney Can Answer Your Questions About Federal and State Immigration Laws

Immigration is a constantly evolving area of law that is far from settled. If you’re dealing with immigration issues, naturalization, or becoming a U.S. citizen, you should contact a skilled immigration attorney. They can help you navigate this complex and overwhelming system.

FindLaw’s directory of immigration attorneys can get you started. Both federal and state immigration laws are relevant, so your attorney should be licensed in your state. Enter your city or ZIP code for a list of qualified legal professionals in your area. Your search results will also show important details about prospective lawyers, including ratings and whether they offer free consultations.