October Term 2010 · Docket 09-115

Does federal law block states from revoking business licenses for hiring unauthorized workers?

Businesses argue federal law preempts state license revocations. States claim they retain police power to regulate employers.

Official caption
Chamber of Commerce of United States v. Whiting
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Mr. Phillips argued Congress made employer sanctions central to immigration policy.

    He stated federal law broadly preempted state and local sanctions.

    He noted the only exception was a parenthetical for licensing laws.

    Ms. O'Grady argued states traditionally regulate employer conduct through police powers.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The case tests whether federal immigration law blocks states from using license revocation to punish employers who hire unauthorized workers.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on December 8, 2010.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

the sides that brought the case want the Court to strike down state license revocation laws.

the opposing sides want the Court to uphold state license revocation laws.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

the sides that brought the case argue federal law preempts state sanctions on unauthorized hiring.

the opposing sides argue states retain police power to regulate employer conduct.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Breyer asked if the state law definition mirrors the Administrative Procedure Act.

Justice Scalia asked why the federal option leaves states no other choice.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

The outcome defines the boundary between federal immigration control and state regulatory authority. It determines whether states can use licensing tools to enforce labor standards. This shapes how employers operate across state lines. It impacts the balance of power in national immigration enforcement.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON