A federal law, the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) makes it “unlawful for a person or other entity . . . to hire, or to recruit or refer for a fee, for employment in the United States an alien knowing the alien is an unauthorized alien.” Employers that violate this prohibition may be subjected to civil and criminal sanctions. IRCA also restricts the ability of states to combat employment of unauthorized workers. It does so by expressly preempting “any state or local law imposing civil or criminal sanctions (other than through licensing and similar laws) upon those who employ, or recruit or refer for a fee for employment, unauthorized aliens.” In addition, IRCA requires employers to take steps to verify an employee’s eligibility for employment. Seeking to improve that verification process, Congress created E-Verify, an Internet-based system employers can use to check the work authorization status of employees. Federal law does not require the use of E-Verify, however. 

Arizona was among several states that enacted statutes designed to impose sanctions for the employment of unauthorized aliens. According to an Arizona law (the Legal Arizona Workers Act), the licenses of state employers that knowingly or intentionally employ unauthorized aliens may be, and in certain circumstances must be, suspended or revoked. The Arizona law also requires that all Arizona employers use E-Verify. The Chamber of Commerce of the United States and various business and civil rights organizations filed suit against those charged with administering the Arizona law. The plaintiffs argued that the state law’s license suspension and revocation provisions were both expressly and impliedly preempted by federal immigration law, and that the mandatory use of E-Verify was impliedly preempted. Were the plaintiffs right? Did federal immigration law preempt the challenged provisions of the Arizona statute?