Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting | |
---|---|
Argued December 8, 2010 Decided May 26, 2011 | |
Full case name | Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al., Petitioners v. Michael B. Whiting, et al. |
Docket no. | 09–115 |
Citations | 563 U.S. 582 (more) 131 S. Ct. 1968; 179 L. Ed. 2d 1031 |
Case history | |
Prior | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction sub. nom.Arizona Contractors Ass'n, Inc. v. Napolitano (Arizona Contractors I), 526 F. Supp. 2d 968 (D. Ariz. 2007); refiled, judgement for defendants sub nom. Arizona Contractors Ass'n, Inc. v. Candelaria (Arizona Contractors II), 534 F. Supp. 2d 1036 (D. Ariz. 2008); affirmed sub. nom. Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. v. Napolitano, 558 F.3d 856 (9th. Cir. 2009); cert. granted, 561 U.S. 1024 (2010) |
Holding | |
Arizona law instructing courts to suspend or revoke the business licenses of in-state employers that employ unauthorized aliens does not violate the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Roberts, joined by Scalia, Kennedy, Alito; Thomas (Parts I, II–A, and III–A; concurred in judgment) |
Dissent | Breyer, joined by Ginsburg |
Dissent | Sotomayor |
Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. |
Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, 563 U.S. 582 (2011), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that upheld an Arizona state law suspending or revoking business licenses of businesses that hire illegal aliens.[1]
The case dealt with the question of whether the Legal Arizona Workers Act was invalid under federal statutes, in particular the Immigration Reform and Control Act. On May 26, 2011, the Supreme Court ruled, in a 5-3 decision, that the Legal Arizona Workers Act was not preempted by federal legislation.[2] Justices Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Alito and Thomas formed the majority opinion, and Justices Breyer, Ginsburg and Sotomayor formed the minority opinion, with Sotomayor filling her own dissenting opinion. Justice Kagan was recused in the case because she had a prior role in the case from her former role as Solicitor General of the United States.