Document: 424 U.S. 351 96 S.Ct. 933 47 L.Ed.2d 43 Leonor Alberti DeCANAS and Miguel Canas, Petitioners,v.Anthony G. BICA Juan Silva. No. 74-882. Argued Dec. 16, 1975. Decided Feb. 25, 1976. Syllabus Section 2805(a) of the California Labor Code, which prohibits an employer from knowingly employing alien who is not entitled to lawful residence in United States if such employment would have adverse effect on resident workers, held be unconstitutional as a regulation immigration or being preempted under Supremacy Clause by Immigration Nationality Act (INA). Pp. 354-365. (a) Standing alone, fact that aliens are subject state statute does render it immigration. Even local has some purely speculative indirect impact immigration, thereby become constitutionally proscribed Congress itself powerless authorize approve. 354-356. (b) Pre-emption basis congressional intent "occupy field" invalidate even harmonious required this case either because "the nature regulated matter permits no other conclusion" "Congress unmistakably so ordained" result. Florida Lime & Avocado Growers v. Paul, 373 132, 142, 83 1210, 1217, 10 248. clearly within State's police power regulate relationship protect workers State, will presumed Congress, enacting INA, intended oust authority covered § manner consistent with pertinent federal laws, absent any showing INA's wording legislative history its comprehensive scheme for regulating naturalization. Rather than there evidence "has . exclusivity field illegal aliens, Farm Contractor Registration Act, whose provisions prohibiting farm labor contractors were enacted supplement action, persuasive INA should taken legislation expressing Congress' judgment uniform regulations matters affecting therefore barring 2805(a). Hines Davidowitz, 312 52, 61 399, 85 L.Ed. 581; Pennsylvania Nelson, 350 497, 76 477, 100 640, distinguished. 356-363. (c) It courts construe 2805(a), then decide first instance whether what extent construed, conflicting laws regulations. 363-365. 40 Cal.App.3d 976, 115 Cal.Rptr. 444, reversed remanded. Robert S. Catz, Washington, D. C., petitioners; Howard Scher, Burton Fretz, Cal. Rural Legal Assistance, Inc., Santa Maria, Cal., Ralph Santiago Abascal, Sacramento, briefs. William Marrs, Berkeley, respondents; L. Trapp, Jr., brief. Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered opinion Court. 1 Code Ann. provides "(n)o shall employ workers."1 The question presented attempt naturalization pre-empted Clause, Art. VI, cl. 2, Constitution, (INA), 66 Stat. 163, amended, 8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq., statutory 2 Petitioners, migrant farmworkers, brought action pursuant 2805(c) against respondent Superior complaint alleged respondents had refused petitioners continued due surplus resulting respondents' knowing employment, violation lawfully admitted States. Petitioners sought reinstatement permanent injunction willful aliens.2 Court, unreported opinion, dismissed complaint, holding "that 2805 (because) (i)t encroaches upon, interferes with, regulatory exercise exclusive over ." App. 17a. Court Appeal, Second Appellate District, affirmed, 444 (1974). Appeal conditions admission foreign nationals, because, "in area naturalization, exclusive." Id., at 979, Cal.Rptr., 446.3 further indicated was foreclosed when "as incident national sovereignty," governing all aspects including "specifically intentionally declined add sanctions employers control mechanism." Ibid.4 Supreme denied review. We granted certiorari, 422 1040, 95 2654, 45 692 (1975). reverse. 3 * Power unquestionably exclusively power. See, e. g., Passenger Cases, 7 How. 283, 12 702 (1849); Henderson Mayor New York, 92 259, 23 543 (1876); Chy Lung Freeman, 275, 550 Fong Yue Ting States, 149 698, 13 1016, 37 905 (1893). But never every enactment way deals thus per se constitutional power, latent exercised. For example, Takahashi Fish Game Comm'n, 334 410, 415-422, 68 1138, 1140-1144, 1478 (1948), Graham Richardson, 403 365, 372-373, 91 1848, 1852, 29 534 (1971), cited line cases upheld certain discriminatory treatment Although "doctrinal foundations" cases, generally arose Equal Protection Clarke Deckebach, 274 392, 587, 71 1115 (1927), "were undermined Takahashi," see In re Griffiths, 413 717, 718-722, 93 2851, 2853-2855, 910 (1973); supra, 372-375, S.Ct., 1852-1853, they remain that, standing essentially determination into country, legal entrant may remain. Indeed, been need, Graham, Takahashi, 581 (1941), discuss relevant enactments finding pre-emption ipso facto existence vel non wholly irrelevant Constitution own force requires regulation. case, strengthen economy adopting standards imposing criminal right country; Thus, invalid incursion II 4 commit particular Federal Government, situations regulation, although must nevertheless invalidated Clause. As we stated 248 (1963): 5 "(F)ederal deemed preemptive absence reasons conclusion, ordained." 6 cannot conclude (regulation aliens) conclusion," possess broad their powers State. Child minimum wage occupational health safety, workmen's compensation only few examples. California's prohibit persons let alone work here, certainly mainstream Employment times high unemployment deprives citizens legally jobs; acceptance jobs substandard terms wages working can seriously depress scales aliens; diminish effectiveness unions. These problems particularly acute light significant influx State neighboring Mexico. attempting fiscal interests deleterious effects focuses directly upon these tailored combat effectively perceived evils. Of course, designed vital give paramount legislation. presume laws. Only demonstration complete ouster promulgate conflict " 'the clear manifest purpose justify conclusion. 146, 1219, quoting Rice Fe Elevator Corp., 331 218, 230, 67 1146, 1152, 1447 (1947).5 Respondents made demonstration. They fail point out, independent review reveal, specific indication preclude touching general, particular.6 9 Nor derived scope detail INA. central concern country subsequent country. comprehensiveness without more, said draw "plainly (that) aim regulation." San Diego Unions Garmon, 359 236, 244, 79 773, 779, 775 (1959).7 This conclusion buttressed entry stay expected complexity subject. another context: "Given addressed ., detailed both likely appropriate, completely apart questions pre-emptive intent." York Dept. Social Services Dublino, 405, 415, 2507, 2514, 688 (1973).8 true proviso 1324, making felony harbor entrants, "employment (including usual normal practices employment) constitute harboring." best peripheral entrants,9 U.S., 243, admonished "due regard presuppositions our embracing system, principle diffusion doctrinaire localism but promoter democracy, us find withdrawal where activity merely (federal regulation) 11 Finally, rather field, form 1974 amendments 88 1652, 2041 seq. (1970 ed., Supp. IV), intends may, law, aliens. 2044(b) authorizes revocation certificate registration contractor found employed "an residence, authorized Attorney General accept employment." 2045(f) employment."10 significance inquiry provision "(t)his chapter contained herein compliance excuse anyone appropriate law 2051 (emphasis supplied). concerned agricultural 2805(a).11 640 (1956), rely, fully Pennsylvania's Alien 1939 Act. Nelson Sedition Smith relied schemes intent, statutes regulate, while here And face general "to enforce sedi tion Government occupied protecting entire seditious conduct." 500, 479. Moreover, neither nor affirmative evidence, sanctioned concurrent challenged law. Furthermore, those based predominance interest fields affairs, appear similar situation fashioned remedy problems, operates employers, respect individuals whom already declared imposed burdens created conflicts various III There remains whether, contemplates room legislation, "stands obstacle accomplishment execution full purposes objectives Congress" 67, 404; 141, 1216. do think address record before us. did reach decision, today reversed, barred Accordingly, construction settled "can enforced impairing superintendence 1217. 14 "entitled residence." application, prevent who, "not States," permitted here? conceded oral argument face, apply unconstitutionally point, however, limiting given administrative promulgated Director Industrial Relations. Administrative Title 8, part 1, c. art. 16209 (1972), defines residence" follows: "An mean non-citizen possession Form I-151, Receipt Card, document issued Naturalization Service him work." Dolores Canning Co. Howard, 673, 677 n. 3, 435, 436 Whether appear, addressing law.12 Obviously construing extent, 5, construed suffices time erred precluded 15 remanded proceedings inconsistent opinion. 16 ordered. 17 Reversed 18 STEVENS took consideration decision case. added Stats.1971, p. 2847, 1442, reads text "(a) No workers. "(b) A person guilty subdivision punishable fine less two hundred dollars ($200) more five ($500) each offense. "(c) foregoing bar civil (a)." assume, arguendo, referring "illegal aliens," prohibition applies correct issue open remand. See Part III, infra. Insofar 2805's objective Appeal's view nationals questioned. Another division section aimed seeks aid residents obtaining 686, 442 also relying, inter alia, Guss Utah Board, 353 77 598, 601 (1957), (1959), stating "does could affect several ways." Cal.App.3d, 442-443. uncertain viewed legislation; court's discussion seems imply court assumed 2805, yet done so. H.R. 8713, now pending amend 1324 provide penalty also, 413-414, 2512-2513, Schwartz Texas, 344 199, 202-203, 73 232, 234-235, 97 231 (1952); Zook, 336 725, 732-733, 69 841, 844-845, 1005 (1949). manifestation field," invalidation treaties. However, "conflicting repealing provisions, 'only necessary achievement aims of' since proper approach reconcile operation one (the scheme) ousted.' Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner Ware, 414 117, 127, 94 383, 389, 38 348 (1973), Silver Stock Exchange, 341, 361, 357, 1246, 1259, 1257, 389 (1963). congressionally discriminates impermissible imposes additional contemplated Congress: "The determining period remain, conduct 66, 403, 581. Under states powers; take admission, states. impose entrance accordingly invalid." 419, 1142, (1948) 376-380, 1854-1856, (1971); Truax Raich, 239 33, 41-42, 36 7, 10-11, 60 131 (1915); cf. Sugarman Dougall, 634, 641-646, 2842, 2847-2849, 853 (1973). appears opportunities jobs, burdens. bringing 26, 607, 618 (1959) controlling authority. Reliance decisions misplaced. Those involved management disputes expressly committed National Relations Board concerning assert jurisdiction; ceded jurisdiction empowered do. 6-9, 600-602. rejected inaction NLRB left free conduct. 10(a) 160(a), excluded disputed unless entered agreement ceding circumstance "(t)o leave plainly involves too great danger between asserted requirements law." 779. Garmon recognize, therefore, areas decides require uniformity exclude harmonious. nothing remotely resembling NLRA "Little vague illusory often repeated formula 'by occupying field' Every occupies know boundaries say reserved Constitution. To discover look itself, read setting history." 78-79, (1941) (Stone, J., dissenting). immunizing employs possible, question. infra, criminalizes "appropriate" criminalizing same 1324(a) failure enact justifies inference pre-empt area. reinforces drawn believes problem rules appropriately matter. would, event, remand analysis actual potential §§ 1101(a)(15)(H), 1182(a)(14), 1321-1330. 2044(b)(6) IV) provides: "Upon notice hearing accordance prescribed him, Secretary refuse issue, suspend, revoke, renew he finds "(6) recruited, employed, utilized, knowledge, services person, "Every "(f) refrain recruiting, employing, utilizing, Violations criminal, aggrieved accorded relief. Solicitor General, his Memorandum Amicus Curiae 4, concedes "Act limited law," argues stating: "(T)he forbids hiring 'alien States,' U. many classifications, direct Law." 18a. quotes definition footnote, respecting

Category: 1