{"id":352788,"date":"2022-08-19T07:42:48","date_gmt":"2022-08-19T12:42:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/content.findlaw-admin.com\/ability-law\/immigration\/immigration-laws-and-resources\/arizona-immigration-law-s-b-1070.html"},"modified":"2026-05-01T10:22:00","modified_gmt":"2026-05-01T15:22:00","slug":"arizona-immigration-law-s-b-1070","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.findlaw.com\/immigration\/immigration-laws-and-resources\/arizona-immigration-law-s-b-1070.html","title":{"rendered":"Arizona Immigration Law: Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act (S.B. 1070)"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n

Arizona Immigration Law: Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act (S.B. 1070)<\/h1>\n\n
\n
\n By Eric Harvey, J.D.<\/a> | Legally reviewed by Meagan Neil, Esq.<\/a>\n | Last reviewed\n
\n \n <\/i>\n Legally Reviewed\n <\/summary>\n\n
\n

This article has been written and reviewed for legal accuracy, clarity, and style by FindLaw\u2019s team of legal writers and attorneys<\/a> and in accordance with our editorial standards<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n <\/div>\n <\/details>\n\n

\n \n <\/i>\n Fact-Checked\n <\/summary>\n\n
\n

The last updated date refers to the last time this article was reviewed by FindLaw or one of our contributing authors<\/a>. We make every effort to keep our articles updated. For information regarding a specific legal issue affecting you, please contact an attorney in your area<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n <\/div>\n <\/details>\n<\/section>\n\n\n

\n

Arizona<\/span>\u2019s S.B. 1070 was a sweeping 2010 immigration law<\/span> that sparked national controversy and faced major legal challenges<\/span>. The U.S. <\/span>Supreme Court<\/span> struck down key provisions, and later settlements further limited the law, especially those tied to mandatory immigration checks and concerns about racial profiling<\/span>.<\/p>\n\n <\/div>\n\n\n\n

On April 23, 2010, Arizona<\/span> Governor Jan Brewer<\/span> signed into law\u00a0Senate Bill 1070<\/span>. The bill aimed to prevent illegal immigration<\/span>, significantly affecting the Mexico<\/span>-bordering state of <\/span>Arizona<\/span>. The law was titled \u201cSupport Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act<\/span><\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n

This article provides information about S.B. 1070 in Arizona<\/span>. Because immigration rules continue to evolve, anyone facing an immigration issue in Arizona<\/span> should speak with a local immigration attorney<\/a> for up\u2011to\u2011date guidance.<\/p>\n

S.B. 1070: What Remains and What Doesn\u2019t<\/h2>\n

As a result of legal challenges<\/span>, not all parts of the bill remain in effect. The original bill would have enlisted local police<\/span> to enforce federal <\/span>immigration laws<\/span> in the state. It required law enforcement to check the immigration status<\/span> of any person they have \u201creasonable suspicion<\/span>\u201d of being in the U.S. illegally.<\/p>\n

But, a U.S. <\/span>Supreme Court<\/span> ruling in 2012 and a settlement with plaintiffs in 2016 have gutted the law \u2014 including provisions related to the \u201creasonable suspicion<\/span>\u201d standard.<\/p>\n

For example, the cases removed a provision that would have charged immigrants with a\u00a0misdemeanor<\/span><\/a>\u00a0for 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\u2019s discretion. It also forced migrants in Arizona<\/span>\u00a0who remained for more than 30 days to register with the state. This part of the bill referred to certain \u201calien registration\u201d requirements.<\/p>\n

Keep reading for an overview of the legal implications of this law and its status after being challenged in court.<\/p>\n

National, State, and Local Reaction to Arizona<\/span> S.B. 1070<\/span><\/h2>\n

The signing of Arizona<\/span> S.B. 1070<\/span> sparked an ongoing national debate from opponents and supporters over its legality. Opponents claimed the law was unconstitutional under civil rights<\/span> laws. They believed it would lead to racial profiling<\/span> and\u00a0harassment<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Supporters of the measure claimed the law enforces what the federal government<\/span> 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<\/span>. In defense of the bill, they pointed to problems with drug smuggling<\/a> and human trafficking in Arizona<\/span>. Some say the law would help lead the charge for immigration reform<\/span>.<\/p>\n

The Supremacy Clause<\/h2>\n

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<\/span> may have some latitude in the laws of their jurisdictions. But mandates and ordinances from any jurisdiction cannot contradict U.S. constitutional law.<\/p>\n

The\u00a0Supremacy Clause<\/a>\u00a0of the U.S. Constitution requires that federal law \u201cpreempts\u201d (or trumps) state law<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Immigration laws<\/span> and policies are federal. As a result, the Arizona<\/span> immigration law<\/span> was challenged as violating the Supremacy Clause. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals<\/span> upheld a lower federal court\u2019s injunction of the law, sending the matter to the U.S. <\/span>Supreme Court<\/span>.<\/p>\n

Challenges to the Arizona<\/span> Law<\/h2>\n

In July 2010, the\u00a0U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)<\/a>\u00a0filed a lawsuit in a federal court against the state of <\/span>Arizona<\/span>. The DOJ argued that S.B. 1070 would interfere with federal enforcement of U.S. <\/span>immigration<\/span> law<\/span>. The complaint indicated that S.B. 1070 could compromise efforts by\u00a0Immigration and Customs Enforcement<\/span> (ICE)<\/a>. This could distract ICE from prioritizing actual national security threats.<\/p>\n

Among the claims by the D.O.J. was that S.B. 1070 would take resources in Arizona<\/span> 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<\/span>.<\/p>\n

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<\/span>.<\/p>\n

In a 5-3 ruling in 2012, the\u00a0Supreme Court<\/span> overturned three of the provisions of S.B. 1070<\/a>. But, the court allowed the provision requiring police to demand documentation of legal residency intact. SCOTUS justified this by citing the Supremacy Clause.<\/p>\n

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

\u201cOfficers shall not prolong a stop, detention, or arrest solely to verify immigration status<\/span>. Officers shall not contact, stop, detain or arrest an individual based on race, color, or national origin<\/span>, except when it is part of a suspect description.\u201d<\/p>\n

Racial Profiling<\/span><\/h2>\n

Racial profiling<\/span> 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<\/span> 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<\/span> illegally.<\/p>\n

S.B. 1070 would have given local <\/span>law enforcement<\/span> officials<\/span> in the state far too many powers to violate the civil rights<\/span> of U.S. citizens<\/span>. By requiring that state <\/span>law<\/span> enforcement officers<\/span> check the citizenship status of \u201csuspicious\u201d people, S.B. 1070 would encourage racial profiling<\/span>. Many advocacy groups, like the ACLU<\/span>, condemned the parts of S.B. 1070 that facilitated racial profiling<\/span>.<\/p>\n

The ACLU<\/span> once said it had filed its lawsuit, given that the bill encouraged \u201cracial profiling<\/span> of Latinos<\/span> and others who may look or sound \u2018foreign,\u2019 including many U.S. citizens<\/span> who have lived in America their entire lives.\u201d Similarly, it could affect US citizens<\/span> who have undergone the naturalization<\/span> process<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Attorneys for the ACLU<\/span> argued that these parts of the bill would violate citizens\u2019 rights to equal protection under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.<\/p>\n

To learn more about the relationship between racial discrimination and equal protection,\u00a0review FindLaw\u2019s page on the issue<\/a>.<\/p>\n

National Immigration Policies<\/span><\/h2>\n

Many national immigration reform<\/span> advocates hoped the controversy surrounding Arizona<\/span>\u2019s 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<\/span>, deficiencies remain in the U.S. immigration<\/span> system<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Public Safety<\/span> Concerns<\/h2>\n

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

States With Similar Laws to S.B. 1070<\/h2>\n

After Arizona<\/span> passed S.B.\u00a01070, other states passed similar laws. This\u00a0included:<\/p>\n