This week we are covering the jurisdiction of the Department of Homeland Security. Who has the power to create and enforce immigration laws? The recent United States Supreme Court case, Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. ___ (2012), while complex, directly covers this very important and fundamental issue. In 2010, the Arizona legislature enacted Senate Bill 1070, "Support our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act," in part as a response to DHS's inability or unwillingness to enforce federal immigration laws. Prior to the enactment of the bill into law, the United States filed suit in federal district court arguing that SB1070 conflicts with federal law, that immigration federal law is supreme over state law (preemption), and that the court should issue an injunction to prevent the bill from being enacted into law. The U.S. District Court granted the injunction in part, finding that four provisions of SB1070 are preempted. Those provisions are: The provision that requires an officer to make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested, if there is reasonable suspicion that person is in the country illegally. This portion also requires law enforcement to check the immigration status of people arrested and to hold them indefinitely until the status is determined. The provision that creates the crime of failure to apply for or carry "alien-registration papers." The provision allowing for a warrantless arrest of a person if there is probable cause to believe the individual committed a public offense that makes him or her removable from the U.S. The provision making it a crime for illegal immigrants to solicit, apply for or perform work. Arizona then appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The 9th Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court's injunction. Arizona appealed again and the case finally was resolved by the United States Supreme Court (case attached). The recent Supreme Court case touches directly on both the Constitutional power to regulate immigration and the scope of federal power to regulate immigration. This case is quite complex and lengthy, so this week I would like you to: 1. Cover one aspect of the court's decision, meaning- find ONE of the topics covered and discuss how the court ruled. 2. In your discussion, include the majority and dissenting opinion and at the end, who you agree with and why. Be organized in your post and do not cover the entire case - please read my instructions above carefully. Some topics that you can discuss from the case are: The differing opinions by the judges on the Constitutional sources of immigration laws. The history of state sovereignty as discussed in the dissenting opinion by Justice Scalia. As our text mentions, our early immigration history gave the States primary authority to restrict immigration. Do you think states should have some power to regulate as Justice Scalia suggests? Pick a section of the bill decided in the case and cover the majority and dissenting opinions. The overall policyissues surrounding the case, such as local law enforcement's ability to enforce provisions of the law.