October Term 2011 · Docket 11-182

Can Arizona enforce federal immigration rules?

Arizona claims federal law allows state police to check immigration status. The United States argues this power belongs only to federal agencies.

Official caption
Arizona v. United States
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

    Paul Clement argued Arizona bears disproportionate costs from illegal immigration.

    Clement stated Arizona borrowed federal standards for its own enforcement.

    Clement claimed the state enlisted resources for uniform federal laws.

    Clement criticized the government's theory on ad hoc versus systematic enforcement.

    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

Arizona argues it bears high costs from illegal immigration. The state wants to use federal standards for enforcement. It seeks to enlist state resources for uniform laws. The United States argues immigration status is a federal matter. It claims state enforcement violates federal exclusivity. The dispute centers on state versus federal power.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on April 25, 2012.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Arizona wants to enforce federal immigration standards using state police.

The United States wants to keep immigration enforcement exclusively federal.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Arizona argues state enforcement of federal standards is permissible.

The United States argues state enforcement violates federal exclusivity.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Sotomayor asked if police have discretion to make calls.

Justice Breyer asked about arresting a Hispanic-looking citizen jogging.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the boundary between state and federal police power. It determines who controls immigration enforcement at the border. It shapes how states interact with federal immigration laws. It impacts daily interactions between police and residents. It clarifies the scope of state sovereignty in this area.

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