Arizona Immigration Law: Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act (S.B. 1070)

On April 23, 2010, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed into law Senate Bill 1070. The bill aimed to prevent illegal immigration, significantly affecting the Mexico-bordering state of Arizona. The law was titled “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act.”

This article provides information about S.B. 1070 in Arizona. Because immigration rules continue to evolve, anyone facing an immigration issue in Arizona should speak with a local immigration attorney for up‑to‑date guidance.

S.B. 1070: What Remains and What Doesn’t

As a result of legal challenges, not all parts of the bill remain in effect. The original bill would have enlisted local police to enforce federal immigration laws in the state. It required law enforcement to check the immigration status of any person they have “reasonable suspicion” of being in the U.S. illegally.

But, a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2012 and a settlement with plaintiffs in 2016 have gutted the law — including provisions related to the “reasonable suspicion” standard.

For example, the cases removed a provision that would have charged immigrants with a misdemeanor for failing to carry documentation of their legal status. While the law required police to ask for proof of legal residency status, it is now subject to the officer’s discretion. It also forced migrants in Arizona who remained for more than 30 days to register with the state. This part of the bill referred to certain “alien registration” requirements.

Keep reading for an overview of the legal implications of this law and its status after being challenged in court.

National, State, and Local Reaction to Arizona S.B. 1070

The signing of Arizona S.B. 1070 sparked an ongoing national debate from opponents and supporters over its legality. Opponents claimed the law was unconstitutional under civil rights laws. They believed it would lead to racial profiling and harassment.

Supporters of the measure claimed the law enforces what the federal government already requires. They argued that the law aims to keep neighborhoods and communities safe. They also argued that the bill is necessary in a state heavily affected by illegal immigration. In defense of the bill, they pointed to problems with drug smuggling and human trafficking in Arizona. Some say the law would help lead the charge for immigration reform.

The Supremacy Clause

The United States is a federalist system. States have some freedom in how they write and pass laws. But they must remain within specific parameters to not violate the U.S. Constitution, as only Congress can enact federal laws. Local governments may have some latitude in the laws of their jurisdictions. But mandates and ordinances from any jurisdiction cannot contradict U.S. constitutional law.

The Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution requires that federal law “preempts” (or trumps) state law.

Immigration laws and policies are federal. As a result, the Arizona immigration law was challenged as violating the Supremacy Clause. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower federal court’s injunction of the law, sending the matter to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Challenges to the Arizona Law

In July 2010, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit in a federal court against the state of Arizona. The DOJ argued that S.B. 1070 would interfere with federal enforcement of U.S. immigration law. The complaint indicated that S.B. 1070 could compromise efforts by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). This could distract ICE from prioritizing actual national security threats.

Among the claims by the D.O.J. was that S.B. 1070 would take resources in Arizona away from bigger priorities, such as fighting terrorism. The DOJ also argued that it would cause the harassment and detention of those in the United States legally, including U.S. citizens.

After the federal court granted a preliminary injunction against certain parts of S.B. 1070, many parts of the bill were repealed. After that, federal authorities could operate the way they once had in Arizona.

In a 5-3 ruling in 2012, the Supreme Court overturned three of the provisions of S.B. 1070. But, the court allowed the provision requiring police to demand documentation of legal residency intact. SCOTUS justified this by citing the Supremacy Clause.

In 2016, the state settled lawsuits with the National Immigration Law Center by dropping this provision. Other immigrant rights groups were involved in the lawsuit, as well. Along with the settlement, Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich issued the following statement:

“Officers shall not prolong a stop, detention, or arrest solely to verify immigration status. Officers shall not contact, stop, detain or arrest an individual based on race, color, or national origin, except when it is part of a suspect description.”

Racial Profiling

Racial profiling uses race or nationality to identify a person as a suspect or potential suspect. Opponents believe S.B. 1070 would unfairly lead to racial profiling among residents or visitors within the state. They believed this because the new law would allow police to arrest people they suspect of being in Arizona illegally.

S.B. 1070 would have given local law enforcement officials in the state far too many powers to violate the civil rights of U.S. citizens. By requiring that state law enforcement officers check the citizenship status of “suspicious” people, S.B. 1070 would encourage racial profiling. Many advocacy groups, like the ACLU, condemned the parts of S.B. 1070 that facilitated racial profiling.

The ACLU once said it had filed its lawsuit, given that the bill encouraged “racial profiling of Latinos and others who may look or sound ‘foreign,’ including many U.S. citizens who have lived in America their entire lives.” Similarly, it could affect US citizens who have undergone the naturalization process.

Attorneys for the ACLU argued that these parts of the bill would violate citizens’ rights to equal protection under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

To learn more about the relationship between racial discrimination and equal protection, review FindLaw’s page on the issue.

National Immigration Policies

Many national immigration reform advocates hoped the controversy surrounding Arizona’s law would help emphasize the need for a comprehensive federal reform law. But such reform has yet to be introduced. While the bill has sparked numerous legal challenges, deficiencies remain in the U.S. immigration system.

Public Safety Concerns

Because of fears the law would discourage immigrants from reporting criminal activity, there was a concern over public safety. Unauthorized residents who fear prosecution could have put others at risk by not reporting such activities.

States With Similar Laws to S.B. 1070

After Arizona passed S.B. 1070, other states passed similar laws. This included:

• Alabama
• Georgia
• Indiana
• South Carolina
• Utah

These laws also attempt to address illegal immigration at the state level.

The following are some of the state laws similar to SB 1070. All faced court challenges, especially following the Supreme Court’s decision in Arizona v. United States. Some of their provisions remain in place.

Alabama House Bill 56

Alabama legislators enacted House Bill 56 in 2011. The bill modified Alabama immigration law by introducing measures that:

• Allowed law enforcement authorities to check the immigration status of people they detained
• Required employers to verify the legal status of every new hire

Civil rights groups challenged the constitutionality of HB 56, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Arizona v. United States. They argued that HB 56 leads to racial profiling, unlawful interrogations, and arrests in violation of the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

By October 2013, most of the provisions of HB 56 were struck down. The only one to survive was the requirement for verification of authority to work in the country.

Georgia House Bill 87

In 2011, Georgia passed House Bill 87. The bill expanded Georgia immigration law by giving law enforcement officials the power to:

• Check the immigration status of certain people
• Penalize people who transport or harbor undocumented immigrants

The bill faced a series of criticisms suggesting that it promoted racial profiling and conflicted with federal law.

In March 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals 11th Circuit issued a permanent injunction blocking multiple provisions of HB 87. Included among the provisions blocked was the one that criminalized harboring or transporting undocumented immigrants.

Indiana Senate Bill 590

In 2011, Indiana passed Senate Bill 590. The bill added several new provisions to Indiana immigration law, including:

• Allowing warrantless arrest of immigrants with removal orders or a notice of action from the Department of Homeland Security
• Requiring employment verification for all new hires
• Subjecting employers who hire undocumented immigrants to criminal charges

A federal judge blocked the provisions of SB 590 that authorized warrantless arrest and the criminalization of hiring undocumented immigrants through a preliminary injunction. The district court ruled that these provisions violated due process rights and that federal immigration law preempts state law.

South Carolina Senate Bill 20

In 2011, lawmakers in South Carolina passed SB 20. The law was modeled after Arizona’s SB 1070 and faced similar legal challenges. It required law enforcement to demand proof of citizenship where they had a reasonable suspicion that someone was in the country illegally. It also criminalized providing aid to people who were undocumented.

A lawsuit by the ACLU and several other civil rights groups led to a preliminary injunction blocking most of this law from taking effect. Eventually, they reached an agreement with the state government to permanently ban key provisions of the law. It also established strict guidelines for law enforcement when requesting someone’s immigration documents.

Utah House Bill 497

In 2011, Utah passed House Bill 497. Some provisions of the bill allowed police officers to ask immigrants for documents showing their lawful immigration status. The law also compels all immigrants to carry their immigration documents at all times.

The National Immigration Law Center and the ACLU filed a lawsuit to stop HB 497 from taking effect. They argued that the bill violated the constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure and infringed on federal immigration authority.

In 2014, a federal judge struck down several provisions of HB 497. It limited the authority of police officers and law enforcement officials to detain individuals solely based on their immigration status verification. The court also clarified that Utah residents do not need to carry immigration identification documents at all times.

Legal Challenges to S.B. 1070

The passage of Arizona Senate Bill 1070 led to a string of legal challenges. These lawsuits mainly questioned whether S.B. 1070 conflicted with federal immigration law. Some critics argued that the legislation could lead to racial profiling. It was also a concern that even legal immigration would be negatively affected.

Numerous groups and individuals joined a coalition to challenge S.B. 1070, including:

• The Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police
• The ACLU of Arizona
• The Mexican-American Legal Defense Fund (MALDEF)
• The Tohono O’odham Nation

The Mexican government and the U.S. Department of Justice also challenged the law. Several Arizona police officers also filed lawsuits against the state. They claimed they were required to enforce a law that could expose them to liability. 

Department of Justice Challenge

In July 2010, the Department of Justice (DOJ) challenged S.B. 1070. The DOJ argued the law violated the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Supremacy Clause states that the Constitution and federal law take priority over similar state laws. The DOJ argued that S.B. 1070 interfered with the federal government’s ability to enforce and set immigration policies.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton issued a preliminary injunction that put four major provisions of the legislation on hold. The state of Arizona appealed, but the Ninth Circuit of the Court of Appeals rejected the state’s arguments. The state then appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Supreme Court: Arizona v. United States

In June 2012, the case of Arizona v. United States changed how states can use state legislatures in enforcing immigration reform. The Supreme Court was asked to rule on four parts of S.B. 1070:

• “Show Me Your Papers” Provision: Law enforcement officials may ask for documents and check a person’s immigration status if reasonable suspicion exists that the person is unlawfully present in the United States
• Warrantless arrest of people believed to have committed deportable offenses: Law enforcement officers may arrest a person without a warrant if there is probable cause that the person is deportable or removable from the United States.
• Requirements for immigrants to carry registration documents: State law can find immigrants guilty of a crime if they fail to carry federal registration papers with them.
• Ban on employment of undocumented immigrants: Migrants who accept or seek work without proper work authorization will be guilty of state crime.

The big issue in this case was whether states like Arizona could pass laws on immigration policy. Was that an act that only federal government officials could do?

The Supreme Court decided that certain parts of the law went too far. They stated that managing immigration is the federal government’s responsibility—not each state.

On June 25, 2012, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy gave the Supreme Court’s majority opinion on Arizona v. United States. He noted that Arizona undertook duties meant for the federal government, which made much of S.B. 1070 unconstitutional.

However, the Supreme Court allowed Arizona to keep the “Show Me Your Papers” provision. This allowed local law enforcement agencies to check the immigration status of persons they stop if the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe that the person might be in the U.S. illegally.

In September 2012, the same coalition filed for another injunction to block the “Show Me Your Papers” provision. They argued that leaving it in place would lead to racial profiling. Authorities could question someone’s immigration status based on their race or assumed national origin. This goes against the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Among other things, the 14th Amendment requires that everyone be treated equally under the law, regardless of their race.

Judge Susan Bolton rejected the injunction and preserved the provision. This allowed law enforcement authorities to stop or detain people if there was reasonable suspicion and ask for immigration documentation.

Other Important Parts of S.B. 1070

S.B. 1070 also required employers to use E-Verify. The E-Verify system provides employers with information about applicants’ and workers’ legal authorization to work in the United States.

The bill says: “Every three months, the attorney general shall request from the United States Department of Homeland Security a list of employers from this state registered with the E-Verify program.”

The bill imposes sanctions on employers that do not use the system. Sanctions include revoking business licenses.

Another prevailing concern was that S.B. 1070 would have interfered with people seeking preventive or general health care. Because the bill would have required checks of patients’ immigration status, there was concern that people would not seek emergency services.

Defend Your Rights: Talk to a Lawyer

Federal and state regulations affect immigrants without proper documentation and others with immigration status. Now, more than ever, the help of a legal professional can make an enormous difference. Contact a local immigration attorney and learn more about your rights. They can advocate for you during:

• Complex immigration processes
• Securing immigration services
• Facing deportation
• Instances of racial profiling or abusive law enforcement practices

Noncitizens are often in vulnerable situations, regardless of whether they hold visas, have a driver’s license, or are permanent residents. It’s essential to protect yourself and your rights.

FindLaw’s directory of immigration attorneys can connect you with qualified legal help near you. Start by entering your city or ZIP code—whether Phoenix, Tucson, or any other part of Arizona. Your search results will also show important details about prospective attorneys, including ratings and whether they offer free consultations.

Do not be afraid to talk to an immigration lawyer—attorney-client privilege prohibits them from sharing information about your immigration status. Their role is to help you, not act as an enforcement agent.