The Attorney General yesterday sued the state of Arizona to prevent S.B. 1070, the state’s new tough immigration law from taking effect on the 29th. Among other things the law makes it a state crime to be in the state illegally. It will require police, while enforcing other laws, to question a person’s immigration status if there’s reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country illegally. It will also require legal immigrants to carry proof of their immigration status.

It bans day laborers from blocking road while seeking employment. There are other section regarding the impounding of vehicles and employment but these are not being challenged in the Federal suit. A number of civil rights organizations have filed a separate suit challenging the entire law.

The Federal government claims that under the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause it has sole power over immigration law. In some areas, such as international relations and the ability to declare war the Federal Government has the sole power to act. In other areas the Federal government and the state governments share power but states cannot enact laws that limit or counteract Federal statutes. For example both the Federal government and the state governments have passed laws criminalizing the use and trafficking of certain drugs The problems occurs when states pass laws decriminalizing the medical use of marijuana. The Federal courts have held that these laws are a violation of the Supremacy Clause and are invalid.

The Federal suit points to the Federal Government’s power to set “uniform Rule[s] of Naturalization” as justification for giving the Federal government sole power over immigration law.

The Supreme Court reversed a New York Court of Appeals decision finding that a state statute (Correction Law Section 24) preventing state trial courts from hearing state and federal law suits brought against correction officers unconstitutional.

42 USC 1983 is a Reconstruction era law allowing plaintiffs to sue state officers who violate the civil rights of individual under color of law. In recent years it has been used frequently to sue corrections officers for violations of inmate’s civil rights. Under long standing law plaintiffs can raise 1983 issues in either Federal or State Courts.

The New York legislature made a finding that most suit against correction officers were frivolous or vexatious. Therefore it passed a law denying jurisdiction to its trial courts for suits brought by inmates against correction officers, whether it be based on Federal or State grounds.

Under Correction Law Section 24 state courts could continue to hear 1983 litigation brought against anyone who is not a corrections officer.

The State alleged that Correction Law Section 24 came under “neutral state rule regarding the administration of the courts” exception to the requirement that state courts hear 1983 litigation. Such exceptions to the rule have long been recognized. The New York Court of Appeals found that since Correction Law Section 24 prohibited trial courts from hearing both state and Federal monetary actions against corrections officers it was neutral and therefore appropriate under the neutral state rule exception.

The Supreme Court, in Haywood v. Drown, et al.,found that Correction Law Section 24 violated the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. It ruled that while neutral jurisdictional rules can forbid a state court from hearing 1983 litigation, the rules cannot be content based. For example a court can refuse to hear a 1983 matter if its rules of venue prevent it from hearing the case but it cannot refuse to hear a case such as Haywood solely because the state has decided that it disagrees with the Federal government decision to hold liable a particular group of defendants or because the Federal rule governs a particular type of behavior.

The Supreme Court held that Correction Law Section 24 allowed the state to effectively modify the Federal statute and therefore it violated the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.