Arizona's Sb 1070: Constitutional Or Not?

Arizona's SB 1070, officially named the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, has been a highly controversial topic since its passing in 2010. The bill, which targets undocumented immigrants, has faced strong opposition from civil liberties organizations such as the ACLU, as well as from the federal government, which challenged its constitutionality in court. The debate surrounding SB 1070 centers around the question of whether the bill violates constitutional and civil rights, with critics arguing that it invites racial profiling and discrimination. Despite these concerns, the Supreme Court has upheld the notorious 'show me your papers' provision, while other provisions have been blocked or struck down. With ongoing litigation and varying interpretations across states, the constitutionality of SB 1070 remains a complex and evolving issue.

Explore related products

Immigration Law: A Quickstudy Laminated Reference Guide

$8.95

Immigration Law and Procedure in a Nutshell (Nutshells)

$62

Immigration Law Pocket Field Guide 2025 Edition [LATEST EDITION]

$50

Immigration Law for Beginners Guide: Easy-to-Follow Steps to Successfully Navigate Immigration Law, Simplifying the Path to Legal Residency and Citizenship for First-Time Applicants and Immigrants

$14.99

Understanding Immigration Law and Practice [Connected eBook] (Aspen Paralegal Series)

$130 $187.95

Understanding Immigration Law (Understanding Series)

$55

Section 2(B) show me your papers provision

Section 2(B) of SB 1070, also known as the "show me your papers" provision, has been a highly controversial aspect of Arizona's immigration law. This provision requires law enforcement officers in Arizona to determine an individual's immigration status in two specific circumstances: firstly, when an officer arrests a person for a state law crime, and secondly, when an officer detains a person on suspicion of a state law crime and develops reasonable suspicion that the person is an undocumented immigrant. This provision has been criticised as inviting racial profiling of Latinos and other individuals who may appear or sound "foreign", including US citizens.

The "show me your papers" provision has faced numerous legal challenges, with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Arizona and other civil rights organisations arguing that it violates the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures and the Equal Protection Clause. Despite these challenges, the Supreme Court upheld the provision, deciding that it was not preempted by federal law. The Court's decision relied on the fact that Section 2(B) requires officers to contact the federal government to verify immigration status, which is something they could initiate independently. Additionally, the Court cited language in the Arizona law prohibiting officers from considering race or national origin.

However, lower courts in Arizona and other states had previously blocked the provision. In 2012, US District Court Judge Susan R. Bolton denied a motion for a preliminary injunction against subsection 2(B), following the Supreme Court's decision in a related case. While the Supreme Court's ruling allowed the provision to go into effect, it left open the question of whether it could be unconstitutionally applied or enforced. This decision sparked protests and lawsuits from advocacy groups and the federal government, highlighting the contentious nature of the "show me your papers" provision.

The "show me your papers" provision has had significant implications for immigrants and people of colour in Arizona. There are concerns that it has led to increased racial profiling and fear of the police. Civil rights organisations have worked to develop clear immigration-related enforcement policies that protect the civil rights of community members. Despite these efforts, Section 2(B) remains in place, underscoring the ongoing debate and legal challenges surrounding Arizona's immigration law.

Fourth Amendment rights

Arizona's SB 1070, officially named the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, was passed by the Arizona State Legislature in 2010. The law created new state immigration-related crimes and broadened the authority of state and local law enforcement to enforce immigration laws. The law has been the subject of intense debate and legal challenges, with critics arguing that it violates constitutional rights, including those protected by the Fourth Amendment.

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. In the context of SB 1070, the Fourth Amendment rights that have been cited in the debate and legal challenges include:

Unreasonable Search and Seizure

Opponents of SB 1070 argue that the law's requirement for law enforcement officers to verify the legal status of all arrestees and detainees amounts to unreasonable search and seizure. They contend that this provision allows for warrantless searches in the absence of probable cause, as officers can prolong stops to conduct immigration checks, even if the circumstances that allow an officer to determine a person's immigration status are not present. This prolonging of stops has been deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment, as it exceeds the time necessary to investigate the original reason for the stop.

Racial Profiling and Discrimination

Critics of SB 1070 argue that the law encourages racial profiling and discrimination based on race, ethnicity, and national origin. They contend that the "show me your papers" provision, which requires individuals to prove their legal status, will disproportionately target individuals from communities of color and lead to civil rights violations. This concern is particularly acute for Hispanic individuals, who opponents argue will be subjected to increased scrutiny and harassment due to the perceived association between illegal immigration and Hispanic individuals.

Impact on Civil Liberties

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Arizona and other civil liberties organizations have been at the forefront of challenging SB 1070, arguing that it infringes on the Fourth Amendment rights of individuals. They contend that the law's broad authority given to law enforcement officers will result in unlawful detentions and arrests, with individuals being targeted based on their appearance or speech, rather than probable cause. The ACLU has documented abuses stemming from SB 1070, including racial profiling and prolonged traffic stops, further reinforcing their argument that the law violates Fourth Amendment rights.

While the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down several provisions of SB 1070 as being preempted by federal law, the "show me your papers" provision remains. This provision continues to be a point of contention, with critics arguing that it violates the Fourth Amendment rights of individuals and leaves room for racial profiling and discrimination.

Supremacy Clause

The Supremacy Clause is a key provision in the United States Constitution, and it plays a significant role in determining the constitutionality of state laws, including Arizona's controversial SB 1070. This clause establishes the primacy of federal law over state law, ensuring that when there is a conflict between the two, federal law prevails.

In the case of Arizona v. United States, the Supreme Court of the United States examined the constitutionality of SB 1070, a state law that aimed to enhance the powers of local law enforcement in enforcing federal immigration laws. The Court's analysis was grounded in the framework of preemption, which is derived from the Supremacy Clause.

The Court's ruling specifically addressed four provisions of SB 1070. Firstly, Section 3, which related to registration, was found to be preempted by federal law. The Court held that the federal government has exclusive authority over alien registration, rendering any state action or regulation impermissible. Secondly, the Court examined Section 5, which imposed criminal penalties on aliens seeking or engaging in unauthorized employment. As there was no direct counterpart under federal law, the Court applied ordinary preemption principles and concluded that Section 5 conflicted with Congress's objectives. Thus, it was also preempted by federal law.

Additionally, Section 6 of SB 1070 was found to be preempted by federal law, although the specific reasons for this ruling were not provided in the source material. Finally, the Court upheld the provision in Section 2(B), commonly known as the "'show me your papers' provision, which allows law enforcement officers to investigate a person's immigration status during law enforcement stops. This provision has been a subject of intense debate, with critics arguing that it invites racial profiling and discrimination.

In summary, the Supremacy Clause, through the framework of preemption, was central to the Court's analysis of SB 1070. While the Court struck down several provisions of the law as being preempted by federal law, it upheld the "show me your papers" provision, setting a precedent for similar laws in other states.

Explore related products

UNDERSTANDING REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS IN THE IMMIGRATION COURT: A layperson's guide to deportation and deportation defense in the U.S. Immigration Court

$3.99

Immigration Law Made Simple for Paralegals: A Practical Guide with Tools and Strategies

$15.99

U.S. Immigration Made Easy

$38.1 $44.99

Immigration and Nationality Laws of the United States: Selected Statutes, Regulations and Forms, 2024

$71

Immigration Law Handbook 2025 Edition

$163

Immigration Law: An Open Casebook: Version 3.0

$12.66

Fourteenth Amendment

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution formally defines citizenship and protects civil rights from being denied by state law or state action. The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment overruled the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision that African Americans could not become citizens. The clause also constitutionalized the Civil Rights Act of 1866's grant of citizenship to all born in the United States, except the children of foreign diplomats.

The Fourteenth Amendment has been invoked in challenges to Arizona's SB 1070, a 2010 law that requires law enforcement officers to determine a person's immigration status under certain circumstances. The law has been criticised for encouraging racial profiling and prolonging traffic stops, particularly of Latinos and other minorities.

Legal challenges to SB 1070 have argued that the law violates the Fourteenth Amendment by discriminating on the basis of race, ethnicity, and national origin. Specifically, the argument is that the law subjects individuals to stops, detentions, and arrests based on their race or origin, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

While the Supreme Court upheld the "show me your papers" provision of SB 1070, it did not address the argument that the law violates the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court's decision to uphold racial profiling has been criticised by civil rights organisations, who argue that it will lead to civil rights violations and discriminatory treatment of individuals based on their appearance or speech.

Equal Protection Clause

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees that "No state shall [...] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". This clause has been invoked in challenges to Arizona's SB 1070, a controversial immigration law passed in 2010.

SB 1070 requires Arizona law enforcement officers to determine a person's immigration status if they have reasonable suspicion that the person is an "alien [...] unlawfully present in the United States". This provision has been criticised as inviting racial profiling of Latinos and others who may look or sound "foreign", including U.S. citizens.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and other civil rights organisations have challenged the constitutionality of SB 1070, arguing that it violates the Equal Protection Clause by subjecting racial and national origin minorities to stops, detentions, and arrests based on their race or origin. They argue that the law's “show me your papers” provision encourages racial profiling and violates the civil rights of U.S. citizens.

In response to these challenges, the Arizona Attorney General issued guidance in 2016, stating that "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, colour, or national origin, except when it is part of a suspect description."

Despite these assurances, no state court has interpreted the meaning of Section 2(B) of SB 1070, and the law continues to face legal challenges on constitutional grounds. The Supreme Court has upheld the "show me your papers" provision, but lower courts in Arizona and other states have blocked it. The impact of SB 1070 on civil rights and equal protection remains a highly contested issue.

Frequently asked questions