Court hears Arizona case

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court Wednesday seemed split but leaning in favor of an Arizona law that severely penalizes employers that hire illegal immigrants.

Some justices voiced concern that Arizona was infringing on federal power while others said the state was compelled to act by the enormity of the illegal immigration problem.

“Arizona and other states are in serious trouble financially and for other reasons because of unrestrained illegal immigration,” said Justice Antonin Scalia.

Scalia, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel Alito appeared most sympathetic to Arizona’s law regulating employers and illegal immigrants. Their fellow conservative, Justice Clarence Thomas, followed his custom in not speaking during the hourlong oral argument.

Some Democratic-appointed justices, though, suggested the 3-year-old Arizona law intruded on federal turf or could lead to anti-Hispanic discrimination. The skeptics focused on whether a 1986 federal immigration law pre-empted individual state action.

“The enforcement of the immigration laws should be uniform; Congress stated that as an over-arching principle,” said attorney Carter G. Phillips, arguing on behalf of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

The chamber joined the American Civil Liberties Union and immigrants rights groups in challenging the Legal Arizona Workers Act of 2007.

Justice Elena Kagan recused herself, and her absence increases the chances the law will be upheld. Kagan was President Barack Obama’s solicitor general, and her successor has sided with opponents of the Arizona law. In the event of a 4-to-4 tie among the other justices, the lower court’s decision will be upheld.

The state law contains two main parts. The Supreme Court could end up keeping one and getting rid of the other.

The law, in part, requires Arizona employers to determine worker eligibility through an Internet-based system called E-Verify.

Through E-Verify, employers can quickly match a job applicant’s information with Social Security and Department of Homeland Security databases. About 103,000 employers nationwide were registered to use the program last year.

“This is a federal resource, and the federal government has said, ‘We want this to be voluntary,’ ” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted. “How can Arizona set the rules on a federal resource?”

Justice Anthony Kennedy added that the Arizona’s mandate to use E-Verify “seems almost a classic example of a state doing something that is inconsistent with a federal requirement.”

In addition to the E-Verify requirement, the Arizona law imposes strict penalties on employers that “knowingly or intentionally” hire an illegal immigrant. Guilty employers can have their business licenses suspended or permanently revoked.

Three employers have faced suspension or termination of their business license, under the law.

“You can effectively have the death penalty for business,” Phillips argued.