Opinion ID: 1057415
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Encourage or induce an alien to come to or

Text: reside in this state if the person knows or recklessly disregards the fact that such 2 As will be discussed in more detail, infra, the statute as written fails to clearly criminalize any conduct. 10 VALLE DEL SOL V. WHITING coming to, entering or residing in this state is or will be in violation of law. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2929(A). A violation of § 13-2929 is a class one misdemeanor carrying a fine of at least one thousand dollars. § 13-2929(F). A violation involving “ten or more illegal aliens” is a class 6 felony carrying a minimum fine of one thousand dollars for each alien involved. Id. The only exemptions to the statute are for child protective service workers, first responders, ambulance attendants, and emergency medical technicians acting in their official capacities. § 13-2929(E). In order to place this appeal in context, we review some of the procedural history of the relevant litigation surrounding S.B. 1070. Before S.B. 1070 went into effect, both the private plaintiffs in the instant case and the United States, separately, filed suit challenging various provisions of the bill. As a result of that litigation, the district court preliminarily enjoined four provisions of S.B. 1070—sections 2(B), 3, 5(C), and 6—on preemption grounds. United States v. Arizona, 703 F. Supp. 2d 980, 987 (D. Ariz. 2010). The United States also challenged the provision that is the subject of this appeal, Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2929, not on the basis of preemption, but on the grounds that it was an improper regulation of immigration and violated the Dormant Commerce Clause. The district court rejected this challenge to § 13-2929. Id. at 1003–04. Therefore, § 13-2929 went into effect on July 29, 2010. Arizona appealed the district court’s preliminary injunction. We affirmed, concluding that the provisions were preempted by federal immigration law. Arizona, 641 F.3d at 366. The Supreme Court affirmed our decision with respect VALLE DEL SOL V. WHITING 11 to sections 3, 5(C), and 6, concluding that those three provisions were preempted by federal law. United States v. Arizona, 132 S. Ct. 2492, 2510 (2012). With respect to section 2(B), the Supreme Court reversed, concluding that the provision may be interpreted by the Arizona courts in a manner that survives constitutional scrutiny. Id. It left open the possibility of further preemption and constitutional challenges to section 2(B) as interpreted and applied. Id. After the Supreme Court’s decision in Arizona, the plaintiffs in this case renewed their motion for a preliminary injunction against section 2(B) of S.B. 10703 and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2929. The district court denied the plaintiffs’ motion with respect to section 2(B), relying on the reasoning provided by the Supreme Court in Arizona, which it interpreted as providing “clear direction . . . that [s]ubsection 2(B) cannot be challenged further on its face before the law takes effect.” The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their appeal of that ruling. The plaintiffs’ challenge to § 13-2929 differs from the United States’ prior challenge because it is based on field and conflict preemption. The district court granted the preliminary injunction against § 13-2929, finding it both field and conflict preempted by federal immigration law. Arizona now appeals that ruling arguing that the plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge § 13-2929, and, if they do, they cannot 3 The plaintiffs in this case sought a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of section 2(B) on the basis of Equal Protection and Fourth Amendment challenges to the provision, not brought by the United States in its case, which focused solely on preemption. The plaintiffs also argued that the record in this case, substantially more developed than the record in Arizona, sufficiently established preemption notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s decision in Arizona. 12 VALLE DEL SOL V. WHITING demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits or the other non-merits elements required for injunctive relief.