This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to Petitioners, in 1986 Congress converted worker‑authorization regulation from a peripheral to a core concern of immigration policy by enacting the Immigration Reform and Control Act.
According to United States (Amicus Curiae), according to United States (Amicus Curiae), according to United States (Amicus Curiae), congress declared federal employer sanctions to be central to immigration law, pre‑empting most state and local sanctions except limited licensing provisions.
According to Phillips, congress sought to balance minimizing employer burdens, preventing discrimination, and avoiding the hiring of unauthorized workers.
Under the federal scheme, a state may revoke a professional license if the licensee is convicted of a federal immigration crime.
Background and question before the Court
Justice Scalia asked why it is a problem that both federal and state statutes require intent to hire an unauthorized worker.
According to Justice Scalia, justice Scalia questioned whether a licensing law that revokes a license under certain conditions remains a licensing law.
Justice Sotomayor asked whether the federal I‑9 requirement frustrates congressional intent when states raise a defense that forces disclosure protected by federal law.
Justice Scalia asked whether the use of E‑Verify is mandatory.
Justice Breyer asked whether failure to use E‑Verify bars a state from granting any grant, loan, or performance‑based incentive.
What each side argues
Petitioners (Chamber of Commerce of the United States)
The petitioners argue that Congress made employer sanctions a central component of immigration policy in 1986.
Respondent (Michael B. Whiting)
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
United States (Amicus Curiae)
According to United States (Amicus Curiae), according to United States (Amicus Curiae), according to United States (Amicus Curiae), the United States amicus contends that Congress declared federal employer sanctions central, pre‑empting most state and local sanctions.
General Katyal (Petitioner Counsel)
General Katyal argues that the licensing law described in IRCA is analogous to traditional farm‑labor contractor licensing laws of 1986.
Ms. O'Grady (Petitioner Counsel)
According to Ms. O'Grady, ms. O'Grady asserts that the conflict‑preemption analysis is appropriate because Congress did not address the role of states with respect to E‑Verify.
State of Arizona
Source-limited. The record does not yet support a complete account.
Phillips (Petitioner Counsel)
According to Phillips, phillips notes that Congress balanced three difficult problems: minimizing employer burdens, preventing discrimination, and avoiding the hiring of unauthorized workers.
Phillips argues that interpreting the savings clause as a narrow supplement to federal adjudication limits its effect on broader legal balances.
What happened at oral argument
According to Justice Scalia, justice Scalia questioned why the requirement of intent to hire an unauthorized worker is problematic given that both federal and state statutes already require it.
Justice Scalia asked whether a licensing law that revokes a license under certain conditions remains a licensing law.
Justice Sotomayor asked whether the federal I‑9 requirement frustrates congressional intent when states raise a defense that forces disclosure protected by federal law.
Justice Scalia asked whether the use of E‑Verify is mandatory.
Justice Breyer asked whether failure to use E‑Verify bars a state from granting any grant, loan, or performance‑based incentive.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
The case addresses how federal immigration enforcement pre‑empts state licensing and incentive schemes, shaping the balance between federal authority and state regulation of employers.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- ca1e9d857a2b3ab4add4-r1-32e8c22bc0e45e92.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 23, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.