Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Brewer, GovernoroftheStateArizona Attorneys forDefendantstheSt [email protected] Fax: (602)542-7602 Telephone: (602)542-1586 Phoenix, AZ 85007 1700 W.Washington, 9thFloor Office ofGovernor JaniceK.Brewer Joseph A.Kanefield(#015838) [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Fax: (602)382-6070 Phone: (602)382-6000 Phoenix, AZ 85004-2202 400 E.VanBuren One Arizona Center SNELL &WILMER Joseph G.Adams(#018210) Robert A.Henry (#015104) John J.Bouma (#001358) Arizona, inherOfficialCapacity, Brewer, GovernoroftheState The StateofArizona;andJaniceK. v. The UnitedStatesofAmerica, 11751129 Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRBDocument63Filed07/20/10Page1of48

IN THEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT Defendants. Plaintiff, L.L.P. L.L.P. FOR THEDISTRI ate ofArizona andJaniceK. CT OFARIZONA INJUNCTION ATTACHED INJUNCTION TO MOTION FORPRELIMINARY LODGED: PROPOSEDRESPONSE No. 10-CV-01413-PHX-SRB

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Brewer, GovernoroftheStateArizona Attorneys forDefendantstheSt [email protected] Fax: (602)542-7602 Telephone: (602)542-1586 Phoenix, AZ 85007 1700 W.Washington, 9thFloor Office ofGovernor JaniceK.Brewer Joseph A.Kanefield(#015838) [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Fax: (602)382-6070 Phone: (602)382-6000 Phoenix, AZ 85004-2202 400 E.VanBuren One Arizona Center SNELL &WILMER Joseph G.Adams(#018210) Robert A.Henry (#015104) John J.Bouma (#001358) Arizona, inherOfficialCapacity, Brewer, GovernoroftheState The StateofArizona;andJaniceK. v. The UnitedStatesofAmerica, 11751129 Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRBDocument63Filed07/20/10Page2of48

IN THEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT Defendants. Plaintiff, L.L.P. L.L.P. FOR THEDISTRI ate ofArizona andJaniceK. CT OFARIZONA No. 10-CV-01413-PHX-SRB PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFENDANTS’ RE

SPONSE TO

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

MEMORANDUM OFPOINTS

Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRBDocument63Filed07/20/10Page3of48 I CONGRESS’REGULATIONOF THESUPREMACYCLAUSE...... 1 II. I. III. ARIZONA’S ENACTMENT . PLAINTIFFISNOTLIKELYTO V. IV. LEGAL STANDARD...... 14 . CongressionalActsDesignedto EncourageCooperation B. FederalImmigrationLawsandEnforcementAgencies...... 3 A. . ThePertinentProvisio B. TheImpactofIllegalImmigration onArizona...... 7 A. . PlaintiffHasaHeavyBurden of A. . NoneoftheChallengedSectio B. Between Federal, State, and Local Authorities...... 3 Between Federal,State,andLocalAuthorities...... 3 . Section6(A.R.S 5. Section5(A.R.S.§§13 4. Section4(A.R.S 3. Section3(A.R.S 2. . Section2(A.R.S 1. . A.R.S.§§11-1051and 13- 1. through 6ofSB1070AreFaci i A.R.S.§11-1051(B)doesnotauthorize ii. A.R.S.§11-1051(B)doesnotrequirean i. . A.R.S.§§11-1051 i. do notconflictwithfederal TABLE OFCONTENTS AND AUTHORITIES ...... 1 ...... 1 AND AUTHORITIES indefinite detention ...... 11 ...... 11 indefinite detention ...... 10 every personarrested investigation intotheimmigrationstatusof persons ...... 17 ...... 17 persons oflawfully present result intheharassment ns of SB 1070...... 9 ns ofSB1070...... 9 OF SB 1070...... 7 OF SB1070...... 7 -i-

. § 13-3883)...... 14 . §13-3883)...... 14 . §13-2319)...... 12 . §13-1509)...... 12 . § 11-1051)...... 9 . §11-1051)...... 9 IMMIGRATION...... 3 IMMIGRATION...... 3 SUCCEEDONTHE ns of SB 1070 Are Preempted...... 16 ns ofSB1070ArePreempted...... 16 -2828 and 13-2929)...... 13 -2828 and13-2929)...... 13 ally Unconstitutional ...... 15 ...... 15 ally Unconstitutional EstablishingthatSections2 and 13-3883(A)willnot 3883(A) (Sections2and6) law and priorities...... 17 law andpriorities...... 17 MERITS...... 15 MERITS...... 15 Page

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRBDocument63Filed07/20/10Page4of48 I PLAINTIFFHASNOTESTABL VI. I. THEBALANCEOFEQUITIES VII. . Section5ofSB1070DoesNo E. SB1070CorrectlyAdopts D. . Plaintiff’sArgumentthatSB C. . AnyImpacttoForeignPolicy C. B. Plaintiff’s The Federal Government Can Alleged A. Harm FAVOR ...... 39 ...... 39 FAVOR . A.R.S. §13-2929doesnotviolatethecommerce 2. A.R.S.§13-2929doesnot 1. Arizona...... 28 Arizona...... 28 De Canas Merely Policy ObjectivesIs A.R.S.§13-1509(Section 2. . A.R.S. §13-2929(Secti 5. Federal lawdoesnotoccupythefieldofemployee 4. A.R.S.§13-2319(Section 3. Is BasedEntirelyUpon Misconce Founded...... 36 Comply WiththeExpressIntentofCongress...... 35 clause...... 31 clause...... 31 of aliens...... 31 i A.R.S.§13-2929does ii. A.R.S.§13-2929doesnotdiscriminate against i. immigration...... 26 sanctions...... 24 sanctions...... 24 federal law...... 22 federal lawnorregulatesinafederallyoccupiedfield...... 21 A.R.S.§§11-1051 ii. Test...... 27 Test...... 27 TABLE OFCONTENTS commerce...... 32 commerce...... 32 out-of-state interestsorburdeninterstate burden on interstate commerce ...... 33 ...... 33 burden oninterstatecommerce burden federal resources ...... 20 ...... 20 burden federalresources (continued) -ii- Is HypotheticalandNotWell TIPSSHARPLYINARIZONA’S ISHED IRREPARA Federal LawasthePolicyof An AttempttoSide-Stepthe 1070InterfereswithForeign not BeHarmedByHavingto Based onSB1070’sEnactment t Violate the Commerce Clause...... 30 t ViolatetheCommerceClause...... 30 on 5)doesnotregulate and 13-3883(A)willnot ptions About the Act ...... 38 ...... 38 ptions AbouttheAct 3) neitherconflictswith 4) doesnotconflictwith restrict interstatemovement notimposeanundue BLE HARM ...... 34 ...... 34 BLE HARM Page

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRBDocument63Filed07/20/10Page5of48 IX. CONCLUSION ...... 42 ...... 42 IX. CONCLUSION TABLE OFCONTENTS (continued) -iii- Page

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

be 2 through6ofSB1070 Sections 2through6outwei policy. Plaintiffisnotentitledtoaninjunction. accordance withtheirconstitu implemented becausetheActrequiresonlythat law. Plaintiffwillnotsuffer Plaintiff attemptstomeetthisburdenbyrely 1 express congressionalintent.Plaintiffbearsa find nosupportintheConstitutionorfederal broad policepowers,toestablishstatecr Legislature enactedSB1070pr activity bythefederalgovernmentandcertai State asaconsequenceofille to thecrushingpersonal, environmental, crim or the“Act”). SB1070isArizona’sleg Motion forPreliminaryInjuncti “Support OurLawEnforcemen TheSupremacy Clauseofthe bases upon which plaintiff believestheCour I. THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE cooperate intheenfor

PlaintiffaskstheCourt to 11751129 Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRBDocument63Filed07/20/10Page6of48 irreparably

Plaintiff seekstoenjo Janice K.Brewer(“GovernorBrewer”)a Law oftheLand;and Judgesinev be made, undertheAuthority ofthe [T]he LawsoftheUnitedStates. notwithstanding. Thing intheConstituti harmedifthelawisnotenjoined,and MEMORANDUM OF POIN MEMORANDUM OF cement offederalimmigrationlaws areunconstitutionalin

enjoin SB1070,bu gh Arizona’sinterestsinhavingSB1070implemented. in SB1070asfaci any gal immigrationandthelackofcomprehensive enforcement on orLawsof tional authorityandcongressionallyestablishedfederal t andSafeNeighborhoods Ac imarily torequirethatArizona on (doc.27),which seeksto harm, much less irreparable harm,ifSB1070is harm,muchlessirreparable United StatesConstitutionstates:

itimate andconstitutionally imes thatmirrorexistingfederallaws. - 1 United States,shallbe thesupreme and allTreatiesmade,orwhichshall any StatetotheContrary t shouldenjoin Sec ing onfaulty premises n Arizona“sanctuary”cities.The ery Stateshallbe law and,inmanyinstances,contravene inal, andfinancialburdensthrustuponthe heavy burdenofestab TS ANDAUTHORITIES ally unconstitutional.Plaintiff’sclaims t plaintiff’sMotionaddresses onlythe all Arizona’slawenforcementofficersactin nd theStateofArizona oftheirapplications,thatplaintiffwill that plaintiff’sinte and,pursuant tothe State’s enjoin enforc t,” asamended (“SB 1070” ’s lawenforcementofficers bound thereby, any tions 2through 6. permissibleresponse and inapposite case lishing thatSections opposeplaintiff’s rests inenjoining ement ofthe 1

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Id. clearly establishedpolicy ofIllinois toprev law onaparitywithstatelaw”andtheIllinoi Illinois the districtcourt’sfindingthat“ Illinois publicpolicy.”277F.3d at 941,947. claim forretaliatorydischarg after hecomplainedaboutth Cir. 2002).In class citizenship.” state law,andthusisnotentitledtorelegate considers atoddswithitslocalpolicy”). suits, NewYorkisnotatlibertytoshutth decision tocreatecourtsofgeneraljurisdicti under 42U.S.C.§1983violatedtheS New York law divestingitsstatecourtsof Haywood v.Drown “[t]heSupremac (citation omitted).However, federal law.” the federalgovernment andfrom enacting“laws undeniable interestinensu federal lawasasource ofpublicpolicyforth 277 F.3d at942-43. several Statesasarethelawspassedbythei U.S. Const.art.VI.,cl.2. 2 form First, itrequiresstatestoupholdfederallaw: Thecourtfurtherheld that “theIllinoisco 11751129 Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRBDocument63Filed07/20/10Page7of48 at942-43. one systemofjurisprudence

In upholdingfederallaw,“[a]stateisrequi Second, the Supremacy Clauseprohibits stat publicpolicy” 2 Kobar v.Novartis Corp.

Brandon Brandon v.Anesthesia , 129S.Ct.2108,2114-17(2009)(e

because theSupremacyClauserequiresIllinois“totreatfederal , theSeventh Circuit heldthatanemployee whowasterminated TheSupremacyClausegovern ring that its citizens areobedient tofederallaw.” ring thatitscitizens

e company’s noncompliance withfederal lawcouldsustaina e because thetermination cont federal , whichconstitutesthelawoflandforState..’” upremacy Clausebecause“havingmadethe , 378F. Supp.2d1166, 1169 (D. Ariz.2005) criminal statutescould notprovide abasis for e courthouse doorto federalclaims thatit & PainMgmt.Assocs. - 2 jurisdiction tohearcertainclaimsbrought urts areundernoillusions aboutthestatusof ent itscitizensfromviolatingfederallaw.” r legislatures.Federalandstatelaw‘together on thatregularly sittoentertainanalogous violations offederallaworpolicytosecond- “[F]ederallawisas s courtshad“explicitlystatedthatitisa e stateofIllinois”and that “Illinoishasan Insoholding,theSe y Clause.requiresthat pre-emptive that ‘interferewith,orarecontraryto’ red totreatfederallawonaparitywith es from regulating inareasreserved to es fromregulating mphasis added) (holdingthata s stateactionintwoways. ravened a“clearmandateof , 277F.3d 936,942(7th muchthelawof venth Circuit reversed Brandon ,

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

immigrants andensuring their departure laws.Itsmandate includes, immigration (4) theU.S.CoastGuard.ICEisresponsi U.S. Customs andBorder Protection;(3) the the nation’simmigration andnaturaliza Department ofHomeland Secur and remaininthecountryand,withlimite

§§ 1103-1778 II. CONGRESS’ REGULATI and conflictwithfederallawa (2009) (Breyer,J.,concurring). required bicameral andpres necessarily followfrom,thest effect begivenonly .tofederalstanda 4 3 TheImmigrationandNationalityAct(“ in 1952, that Arizona’slegitimatepolicychoices plaintiff thatisattemptingtoimpose immigr enforcement ofexistingfederalimmigrati priorities. SB1070doesnothi

11751129 Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRBDocument63Filed07/20/10Page8of48 See See Adams Decl. Tab24at3. Pub. L.82-414, 66Stat.163(1952).

The DHSagencieschargedwithsecuring The federal government hasfaced two B. A. Plaintiff framestheissuesinthislawsu 3 iscodifiedinTitle8,Chapters

Federal, State,andLocalAuthorities Congressional ActsDesignedto Federal Immigration LawsandEnforcementAgencies . TheINAgenerallyregulatestheco

entment procedures.” atutory textthatwasprodu nd unambiguous congressional intent. ng ofthesort.Arizonamerely ity (“DHS”)withtheadmini ON OFIMMIGRATION tion laws.8U.S.C. §1103. 12-15oftheUnitedStatesCode. contravene federal im amongotherthings,“detainingillegal (or removal)fromtheUnitedStates.” rds andpoliciesthat on lawsinaconstitutionalmanner.Itis ble forinteriorenforcementofthefederal d exceptions,chargesthe Secretaryofthe - 3 ation policies and prior ation policies Transportation Security Administration; and significant obstaclesin theinterior it interms offederalpreemption, arguing INA”), whichCongress Encourage Cooperation Between the nation’sbordersare:(1)ICE;(2) Wyeth v.Levine nditions uponwhichaliensmayenter

ced throughtheconstitutionally stration andenforcementof stration seekstoassistwiththe are setforthin,or migration policyand

, 129S.Ct.1187,1207 ities thatcontravene originally enacted

See 8U.S.C. 4

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

went onto comm finding that of35,318 criminal enforcement officers in identific enforcement officersin [be] takentoincreasecoordination andcoop Department ofJustice (“DOJ”)to,among othe 1995 WL17211539(F of ourimmigrationlaws.” This Administration shallstandfirm against fundamental rightandduty foranationtoprotec authorities. In1995,thePr interior enforcementthrough devoted over five times more resources devoted overfivetimesmoreresources enforcement ofitsimmigrati 5 enforcement thanoninterioren through twoamendments totheINA:(1 between federal,state,andlocalauthorities consequences. States since1993workedintheUnite Studies foundthat eightofthe48 federal immigrationauthorities”).Interior laws. enforcement offederalimmigration from transmittinginformationregardingtheim City issuedin19 179 F.3d 29,31(2dCir. 1999)(addressing either discourageorseverelyrestrictla 11, 26.Second, certainstateandlocalgo

11751129 Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRBDocument63Filed07/20/10Page9of48 See also

Both theExecutiveandCongress eachhaveexpressed thedesiretoimprove In 1996,Congressestablishedafedera Adams Decl.Tab2(refere See 89 prohibiting,withlim it newcrimes). CutlerDecl.¶¶36-41. For example, theCenterfor Immigration eb. 7,1995).Tofurtherthisobj Memorandum onDeterringIlle esident issuedaMemorandum

on laws. First,“[h]istorically, Congress and[DHS] have increased cooperationbetween federal, state,andlocal aliensreleasedbetween 1 forcement.” AdamsDecl.Tab1; ation ofcriminal aliens.”

al Qaeda ncing aGovernmentAcco d Statesillegally.AdamsDecl.Tab2. w enforcementofficers in termsofstaffa ) thePersonalResponsibility andWork ited exceptions,“anyCityofficeroremployee vernments haveimplemented policiesthat enforcementproblemshavehadserious - 4 See the Executive Order theMayorofNewYork foreign born terrorists operating intheUnited foreign bornterroristsoperating in enforcingthefederalimmigrationlaws erative effortswithState,andlocallaw illegal immigrationandthecontinuedabuse l policyofencouraging cooperation , r things,ensurethat“allnecessarysteps migration statusof e.g. t theintegrityofitsbordersandlaws. , CityofNewYork v.UnitedStates ective, thePresidentdirected 994 and1999,atleast 11,605 nd budgetonborder statingthat:“Itisa Id. gal Immigration,60FR7885,

from assisting in from assisting the untability Officestudy See also any individualto Cutler Decl.¶¶ 5

,

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

or activitiesofillegalaliens”ba officials theauthority Congress’ statedpurpose forenacting8U.S. the WelfareReformAct,whichisc Responsibility Act(“IIRIRA”),Pub.L.104-2 110 Stat.2105(1996); and(2)the Ille Opportunity ReconciliationActof1996(the“W

City ofNewYork authorizes theAttorneyGenera between federal,state,andlocallawenforcem (emphasis added). Section 133alsoexplicitlyre that statuteslikethismightlaterbeconstr localla continued assistancefromstateand to function, essentially,asimmigration subdivision thereoffor laws.First,Sec immigration See local lawenforcemento Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRBDocument63Filed07/20/10Page10of48 11751129 8 U.S.C. §1357(g)(10).

[I]mmigration lawenforcementis Federal lawenforcement,andthatille United States. regarding the immigration status,lawful restricted, fromsendingtoor State orlocalgovernment entityma Notwithstanding any otherprovisionof Several provisionsofIIRIRAalsowe remain in theUnited Statesundetectedandapprehended. detention, orremoval ofaliens not cooperate withtheAttorn alien isnotlawfullypresent inthe status ofanyindividual, includingre [T]o communicatewithth , 179F.3dat32-33 (quoting S.Re tocommunicate with[ICE] rega the purpose ofqualifyingstateandlocallawenforcement officers fficers oragencies: tion 133ofIIRIRA,which isc cognizes thatnosuchagreem l toenterintoagreements sed onCongress’beliefthat: ey Generalintheidentification, apprehension, e AttorneyGeneralrega odified at8U.S.C. §1644,states: receiving from[ICE]information gal Immigration Reform andImmigrant officers. Recognizing theimportance of as highapriorityotheraspectsof United States;or.otherwise to ued tobelimiting,ratherthanexpansive), lawfully presentinthe UnitedStates. - 5 y beprohibited,orinanyway w enforcement (andconcerned, apparently, porting knowledgethat aparticular re designedtoencouragecooperation C. §1644was “togiveState andlocal gal aliensdonot 08, 110Stat. 3009(19 ent officersregardingviolations offederal Federal, State,orlocallaw,no orunlawful,ofanalieninthe elfare ReformAct”), p. No. 104-249,at19-20(1996)) rding thepresence, whereabouts, rding theimmigration with statesoranypolitical ent isrequiredforstateand odified at8U.S.C.§1357(g), have therightto

96). Section434of Pub. L.104-193,

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

local governments havesucc S. Rep.No. 104-249,at19-20 (1996) (emphasis added). 23-25; Kirkham Decl.¶6;Cutler¶¶5-6; laws. immigration 8U.S.C.§1373 Congress enacted inquiries. Specifically, regarding an individual’s immigration status restrictions oncommunications betweenfederal, Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRBDocument63Filed07/20/10Page11of48 11751129

individual: information regardingtheimmigration local governmententityfromdoingan person oragency may prohibit,or ina Notwithstanding any otherprovisionof (b) ADDITIONALAUTHORITYOF or immigration status,lawfulor In accordancewiththesefede the achieving ofthepurposes of considerableassistanceto information byStateandlocalagencies [T]he acquisition, maintenance, and or locallaw,aFederal,State,lo (a) INGENERAL—Notwithstandinganyot Finally, Section642ofIIRIRA,whichis providing the requested verifica within thejurisdictionof verify orascertainthecitizenship to aninquiry bya Federal, State, (c) OBLIGATIONTORESPOND local governmententity. information from[ICE]. sending to,orreceivingfrom,[ICE] prohibit, orinanywayrestrict,an (1) Sendingsuchinformationto, (3) Exchangingsuchin (2) Maintainingsuchinformation. See JuddDecl.¶¶20-22;Vaughan Decl.¶¶40-43;Vasquez 8 U.S.C. §1373states: essfully cooperatedinth essfully the agencyforanypurpose based onitsfindingthat: , ral policiesandstatutes,num and objectivesofthe[INA] formation withanyother Federal, State,or the Federalregulation ofimmigration and unlawful,ofanyindividual. tion orstatusinformation. or localgovernment agency, seekingto y governmententityorofficialfrom cal government entity orofficialmaynot - 6 exchange ofimmigration-related information regardi immigration statusofanyindividual andrequiresICEto GOVERNMENT ENTITIES— GOVERNMENT ny wayrestrict,aFederal,State,or y ofthefollowingwithrespectto status, lawfulorunlawful,ofany INQUIRIES—[ICE] shallrespond Federal, State,orlocallaw,no is consistentwith, or requesting orreceivingsuch Switzer Decl.¶9;Tardy Decl.¶5;Adams codified at8U.S.C.§1373,prohibits state,andlocallaw her provisionofFederal, State, e enforcementoffederal authorizedbylaw, ng thecitizenship . respondtosuch and potentially erous federal,state,and enforcement officers

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

on Homeland Securityconcludedth and locallawenforcement I. ARIZONA’S ENACTMENTOF SB1070 III. before releasingundocumented cr may beanundocumented alien,inquireinto majority ofrespondentsinformICEwhenth Decl. Tab3,atv-vii(survey ofSCAAP 7 6 . TheImpact ofIllegal A. Decl. Tab33at6.(emphasisadded). Ye criminal networks[illegala percent ofdrugsareseized.” “10 percentto30ofillegalaliensar fullest extent,including thedetection intent tocarryoutCongress’ objectivesby immigration laws,interiorenforcementremainsweak. several Arizonacitiesimplemented“sanctuary reasons. First,thefederalgovernment hasfa 17. Obama aptlystated:“thesystemisbroken” Mexico/U.S. borderwithout passingthrough de and areoperatingatatacticaldisadvantage cartels); StreedDecl.¶9(statingthatBord threats toNogalespoliceoffi 2008). Yetthefederal governmentha No. 12989,61FR6091 31 (describing thearrestsofnumerous sexualpr Decl. ¶¶11-20,26;Thrasher Decl.¶¶7-9,17 Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRBDocument63Filed07/20/10Page12of48 Since1996,theExecutiveBranchhasexpr SCAAPistheStateCriminal 11751129

Despite thesestrongfederalpoliciesof These enforcement problems havebeenpa (Feb. 13,1996);Exec. OrderNo must continuetobeenhanced liens] leveragetocircumvent

cers andlackofadequatere Id Alien AssistanceProgram. Alien . at3; iminal aliensfromcustody). at “[t]he existingresourcesoftheU.S.Border Patrol Immigration onArizona and deportationofillegal aliens.” see also s failedtoachievethis objective. 6 fundrecipientsreflectingthattheoverwhelming t, federallawenforcementestimatesthat - 7 er PatrolOfficersare“outmanned, outgunned, “enforc[ing] theimmigration lawstothe when compared tothosepersonscrossingthe e actuallyapprehended and “everybody knowsit.”Adams Decl.Tab essed a“vigorousenforcement” policyand ey have someone incustody they believe arrestees’ immigration status,andalertICE iled tosecureArizona’s border.Second, ; Adams Decl.Tab7at3;Adams Decl. Tab Kirkland Decl.¶¶12-17(discussing death cooperative enforcement ofthefederal ” policies–indirectcontraventionto8 signated portsofentry”). AsPresident edators who werealsoillegalaliens). rticularly acuteinArizonafortwo

7 In2006,theHouseCommittee lawenforcement.”Adams . 13465,73FR33285 (June 6, tocounterthecartelsand sources tocompete withdrug

and 10percentto20 See See , Exec.Order e.g. , Glenn only

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

ascertain the alien’s identity). ascertain thealien’sidentity). “sanctuary” policyprevented po Salvador and explaining the twoorthreeoc routine trafficstopbyanillegalalienwho 34 at1:53:19; Tab29at36:06(s that certainareasinArizona hadthepotentia that illegalcrosserspresent an citizens. Ahern Decl.¶¶19,23. citizens. Ahern laws. CutlerDecl.¶¶35-42;Glover cooperate withthefederalgovernmentin U.S.C. §§1373(a)and1644– 9 8 homicide ofeightPhoenixpoliceofficerssinc Arizona and numerous incidentsofserious of thefederalimmigrationlawshasresultedin of illegalaliensentertheUnitedStatesth sophisticated anddangerous than Tab 33at4(“Mexicandrugcartelsoperati 17% ofArizona’sprisonpopula Arizona Department ofCorrectionshasestimate generally by illegalimmigration,theArizonaLegislature Liberties Union,andArizona Chamber ofCo Enforcement Association(“PL 23 (notingthat10% Superior Court. receiving inputfromnumerousanddiverse Arizona. Adams Decl.Tab8. records intheUnitedStates); February andMarch2010,850 Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRBDocument63Filed07/20/10Page13of48 In2007,theDeputy Commissioner ofU.S. 11751129 See also

Faced withtheever-escala Adams Decl.Tabs28,29,39&36. Glidewell Decl.¶¶3-6,10-15(discussi See DolnyDecl.;AdamsDecl.Tab25at5; of illegal aliens capturedonthebord of illegalaliens

Dever Decl.¶10.Further,dur 9 unacceptableriskofharm totheUnitedStatesandits limiting orrestrictinglawenfo

EA”), theBorderActionNetw known illegalalienstraveled tion and 21.8%offelonyde lice officersfromcontacting tatement ofSen.Linda Gray); anyotherorganizedcriminal ting social,economic,and Decl. ¶¶15-16.Thiscooperative rough Arizona.AdamsDecl.Tab10.The the enforcementoffederalimmigration ng alongthesouthwest borderaremore was wantedforattemptedmurderinEl - 8 violence against Arizonans, including the casions priortothatdateinwhicha organizations, such l forasmallgroupto Customs andBorder Patrol acknowledged mmerce &Industry,theArizonaLegislature e 1999.Adams Decl. asignificantpresenceofillegalaliensin After consideringtheseissuesand determined thatithadtotakeaction. d that criminal aliens makeupmorethan d thatcriminalaliens ng beingshotinthechestduringa er alreadyhaveseriouscriminal fendants in Maricopa County seealso environmental costscaused apathfromMexicointo ing a60-dayperiodbetween ICE orBorderPatrolto rcement officers’abilityto ork, theAmericanCivil enterprise.”) Almost 50% enterprise.”)Almost 8

as thePhoenixLaw see also crosstheborder and Tab 28at46:47, Tab Adams Decl.Tab non AdamsDecl. -enforcement See

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

A.R.S. §11-1051(B)(emphasis added). its Motion. Section2ofSB1070ha Plaintiff purportstochallengeallofSecti 1. Section 2 (A.R.S. § 11-1051) prolonged detentionorarrest 891 F.2d1414,1416(9thCir.1989); person detainedisengage with objectiveandreasonableinferences,form explaining hisvoteinfavorof federal laws.AdamsDecl.Tabs38-39; pursuant totheState’sbroad instances, mandate–assistance enacted SB1070toeliminat 10 is alegalresidentof[Arizona] .[to] bri receive asacondition of theircertification. suspicion). Model LessonPlan:Laws ofArrest 2.2) established, butthey areacorecomponent of thetrainingthat 1986). Not only aretheprobable cause F.2d 1298,1301n.3 93, 101(2005); . ThePertinentPr B. cuffs off”thelocalprotectors). Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRBDocument63Filed07/20/10Page14of48 11751129 Alawfulstoporbriefdetentionrequires“s

to theextentpermittedbyUnitedSt national origininimplem other politicalsubdivision ofthis stat A lawenforcementofficialor the federalgovernment pursuant to8 person isreleased.Theperson’simmigr arrested shallhavetheperson’simmigr determination may hinderorobstruct practicable, todeterminetheimmigration present intheUnitedStates,areas reasonable suspicion other laworordinance ofacounty, or alawenforcementagencyofthis For anylawful stop,detention See Pl.Mot.at7-8.SubsectionBstates,inpertinentpart: United Statesv.Tarango-Hinojos (10th Cir.1984)(citing d in criminal activity.” d incriminalactivity.”

e sanctuary citypolicies,to e sanctuary existsthatthepersonisanalien requiresprobablecause. police powers, to adopt state crimes that mirrorexisting police powers,toadoptstatecrimesthat SB 1070onthebasisthat s twelvesubsections. ovisions ofSB1070 with theenforcementoffederalimmigrationlaw,and, enting therequirements ofthissubsectionexcept agencyofthisstateor or arrest see alsoUnited States v.Salinas-Calderon 10 and reasonable suspicion standards well Adams Decl. Tab 29(SenatorVerschoor Adams Decl.Tab (defining probable cause andreasonable A.R.S.§11-1051(H) on 2,butaddressesonly onable attempt shall bemade, when ng anactioninsuperiorcourttochallenge any city ortownthisstatewhere - 9 state .intheenforcementofany e maynotconsider race,coloror See United StatesCodeSection1373(c). Terry v.Ohio an investigation.Anypersonwhois pecific, articulablefactswhich,together ation statusdetermined before the made by a lawen by made ates orArizonaConstitution.. abasisforsuspectingthat [a] particular ation statusshallbeverifiedwith AdamsDecl.Tab41at 6-7(AzPOST status oftheperson,except ifthe United Statesv.Hernandez-Alvarado , 791F.2d1174,11

See See Muehler v. Mena encourage–and,insome SB 1070“willtakethehand A.R.S.§11-1051(A)-(L). , 392U.S.1(1968)). acounty,city,townor and all permits “[a] personwho forcement official Arizonapeaceofficers isunlawfully subsections BandHin 75-76 (5thCir. , 544U.S.

A , 728

,

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

state thatadoptsorimplements official oragency ofthisstateoracounty,

only interpretation of thesecondsentencethat ascribe animmigration statustoanycategory citizen does nothave animmigration status be understoodto mean both United Statesc to believethatthepersonisunla person law enforcementofficersto (App. 2002).Here,theArizonaLegislaturec have intended.” should notconstrueastatute interpretation. “[A]n important principle of worded, butprinciplesofstatutoryconstruc The Staterecognizesthat interpretation ignoresrecogniz interpretation isinconsistentwiththeState’ even ifnoreasonablesuspicionofunlawful presen officers “toverifytheimmigration statusof immigration laws immigration States suspicion existsthataperson sense. Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRBDocument63Filed07/20/10Page15of48 11751129

must arrested–evenforUnitedStatescitizens Plaintiff arguesthatA.R.S. §11-1051(B Plaintiff’s interpretationsuggeststheword The StateinterpretsA.R.S. theperson’s immigration statusbe dete Porter v.TriadofAriz.(L.P.)

. tolessthanthefullexte . A.R.S.§11-1051(B)doesnot i. thissentenceofthestatutemightwellhavebeenmore artfully determine andverifytheimmigration statusof the immigration status so astocreatearesultthe ed principlesofstatutory rrested isanalienandun apolicythatlimitsorrestri wfully presentinthecountry. § 11-1051(B)toreadthat - 10 city, townorotherpoliticalsubdivision ofthis andnowhereintheINA doesfederallaw s interpretation.More itizens andaliens.However,aUnitedStates tion, andcommon sense,supporttheState’s every personwhoisa statutory construction . ould nothaveintended tocompel Arizona’s nt permittedbyfederallaw.” of United Statescitizen. Accordingly, the , 203Ariz.230,233,52P.3d799,802 is plausiblethat“person” means “such ) willrequireArizona’slawenforcement andwhenthereis “person” inthesecondsentenceshould of everypersonarrested ce exists.Pl.Mot.at8.However,this rmined beforethepersonisreleased. legislature couldnotpossibly construction anddefies common lawfully presentintheUnited require aninvestigationinto cts theenforcementoffederal only whereareasonable over, theplaintiff’s rrested inthestate,” absolutely noreason . [is]thatacourt

every single

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

section A.R.S. §11-1051(L)states thatthe Legislature did subject tofederal-courtreview.” the statutetocontainanimplicit‘reasonable tim indefinite detention“wouldra for aperiod General todetainaremovable a example, theSupremeCourtconsideredwh unconstitutional interpretations).In 550, 554-55,637P.2d1053,1057-58( that iscompatiblewiththerestof clear, .orbecauseonlyone because thesameterminology ambiguous inisolationisof (“Statutory construction.isaholistic exists thatthealienisunlawfu Arizona Legislature’s intent. construed inamannerthatpreservesitsc status. Here,too,theprinciplesofstatut Ass’n ofTex.v.Timbers 1070 inthe manner plaintiff suggests, plai of Arizonaisnotsuggesting thatitslawen impede thefederalgovernment’s enforcement person” –namely,aliensreferredtointh 11 person isotherwise freetogo)pending an in enforcement officermaydetain Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRBDocument63Filed07/20/10Page16of48 11751129 Plaintiffreliesheavily onitsinterpretation

Both A.R.S. §11-1051(L)andthe stat i A.R.S.§11-1051(B) doesnot ii. A.R.S. §11-1051(B)doesnotexpre reasonably necessary not intendforA.R.S.§11-1051(B)toau InwoodForestAssocs.,Ltd.

ten clarifiedbythe remainder ofthepermissiblemeanings See ise seriousconstitutionalconcer lly presentintheUnitedStates. is usedelsewhereinacont lien beyond theremoval period“ an arrestedperson(afterthe

Id. tosecurethealien’sremoval.”Afterconcludingthat Ariz. Downs v. Ariz. Horsemen’s Found. Ariz. Downsv.Horsemen’s the law.”)(internalcitationsomitted). Zadvydas v.Davis 1981) (notingtheobligationtoavoid endeavor.Aprovisionthat may seem ory constructionrequirethat thesentencebe e firstsentencewher onstitutionality andisconsistentwiththe - 11 ntiff’s purported harm isspeculative. forcement officersread ssly limitthetimeduringwhichalaw “shall beimplemented inamanner consistent ether astatuteauthor vestigation intohis utory history confir to supportitsargumen of itsimmigrationlaws. BecausetheState e’ limitation,theapp , 533U.S.678,682(2001), for , 484U.S. 365, thorize indefinitedetention. ext thatmakesitsmeaning authorizeindefinitedetention of thestatutoryscheme – produces asubstantiveeffect arrest isprocessedandthe e reasonable suspicion 11 ns, [the Court] construe[d] ns, [theCourt]construe[d]

or herimmigration See m thattheArizona ized theAttorney indefinitely (or implement) SB (orimplement) t thatSB1070will , lication ofwhichis e.g. 371(1988) , UnitedSavs. , 130Ariz. .oronly

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Soriano-Jarquin information regardingaperson’simmigration e.g. with federallawsregulating 12 makes it“unlawful for aperson federal governmenttoremainintheUn A.R.S. §13-1509“doesnotapplytoape 1509(A), (H).Theonlydifferenc a maximum fine of $100andamaximum im same A.R.S. §13-1509(A).13-1509fu registration document ifthepersonisinviol of federallaw,apersonisguiltywillful 2. Section 3 (A.R.S. § 13-1509) basis there isprobablecause ofanimmigra 270 F.3d 611,614(8th Cir.2001); reasonable time. detention ofanypersonpending aninvestiga Adams. Decl.Tab40.Thus,A.R.S.§11 “A.R.S. section11-1051doesno Arizona Legislature whilethelegislationwa And theArizonaLegislativeCouncilissuedan respecting theprivilegesandimmunitiesofUnite for profitor commercial purpose.” A.R.S.§13 Cramer Decl.¶¶17,19-21; information aboutforeign nationa users oftheLESCare state andlocallawen Center, availableathttp://www.ice.gov/part Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRBDocument63Filed07/20/10Page17of48 11751129 Asapracticalmatter,lawen , Estradav.RhodeIsland misdemeanor penalties as federal lawimposes misdemeanorpenaltiesasfederal todetain theperson.

Section 4ofSB1070modifi A.R.S. §13-1509reinforcesandmirrorsfe 3.

12 , 492F.3d495,497

Section 4(A.R.S.§13-2319) See

see also immigration, protecting theci , 594F.3d56,61-62(1stCir.2010);

forcement officerscan,andoftendo,callICE toobtain Martinez v. Nygaard to intentionallyengagein t allowfortheindefinitedurationof anindividual.” e betweenthisprovisionandth ls theyencounter.…24 hours see also es A.R.S.§13-2319,astat VasquezDecl.¶¶23-25; MarinoDecl.¶¶25-26. If (4th Cir.2007); tion violation, that ited States.”A.R.S.§13-1509(F). rson whomaintainsauthorizationfromthe -1051(B) mustbeconstruedtolimitthe - 12 failuretocompleteorcarryanalien rther mirrorsfederallawbyimposingthe ICE Programs,LawEnforcementSupport ners/lesc/lesc_factsheet.htm (“Theprimary forcement officersin s beingconsidered,whichstatesthat: ation of8[U.S.C. §§] prisonment of30days.A.R.S.§13- tion into the person’simmigration statustoa status –evenduringatrafficstop. analysisofA.R.S.§11-1051(B) tothe -2319(E). ThesolechangeSB1070made d Statescitizens.”A.R.S.§11-1051(L). deral law:“Inadditionto anyviolation , 831F.2d822, 8 for violationsof8 United Statesv.Rodriguez-Arreola wouldprovidean the smuggling ofhuman beings vil rightsofallpersonsand ute enactedin2005that a day,365days ayear.”); e federalstatutesisthat thefieldwhoneed United States v. 1304(e) or1306(a).” 28 (9thCir. 1987). U.S.C. §1304(e): independent See , ,

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

to thisstatuteiscodifylawenforcement 13 encourage analientocome (again) hasbeenlawsince2005. addressed andrejectedpreemption challengesto person isinviolationofanyciviltrafficlaw. who isoperating amotor vehicle iftheoffi to deterpersons from inducing

or transport anunlawfullypresent fa abiding personswho, for example, induceafa homeowner isharboring illegalaliens.This person’s home, discoverbothacriminal violation ( statute couldalsoapply iflawenforcement traffic stopanddiscovers thatth the personwouldbeviolating of acriminal offense 1misdemeanorfor: A.R.S. §13-2928willmakeitaClass 196 P.3d 879,889-91 (App.2008); 09-15281, U.S.App. LEXIS141 Supervisors Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRBDocument63Filed07/20/10Page18of48 11751129 Thisstatutewouldapplyif,forexample,

at adifferentlocationifthemoto or highway toattempt tohireor [A]n occupantofamotor vehiclethatisstoppedonastreet, roadway Second, A.R.S.§13-2929will contractor inthisstate. public placeorperformworkas knowingly an unauthorizedaliento [A] personwhoisunlawfully present vehicle blocksorimpedes thenorm and tobetransportedwork at or highway inorderto [A] persontoenteramotorvehicleth normal movement oftraffic[;] Section 5ofSB1070willadd , 594F.Supp. 2d1104, 4.

Section 5(A.R.S.§§13-2828 and 13-2929) totransport,move, conceal,harbor

be hiredbyanoccupant immigration lawstodoso. this stateifthepersonknows persons toenterorremainin e driveristransporting both 98 (9thCir.July12,2010). See Statev.Barragan-Sierra We AreAm./SomosAm.v. 1113-14 (D.Ariz.2009), mily member toth two provisionstotheArizona make itunlawfulforaperson adifferentlocationifthemotor anemployeeor hire andpick uppassengersforwork r vehicleblocksorimpedes the - 13 al movement oftraffic[;and] cer hasreasonablesuspicionto believethe apply forwork,solicitworkina officers’ existingauthority a lawenforcementoffice officers, whileexecuting statutedoesnotappl at isstoppedonastreet,roadway ” AtleasttwoArizona in theUnitedStatesandwhois mily membertoente thebalanceofA.R.S. §13-2319,which e.g. ofthemotor vehicle , possessionofdrugs) andthat the independent e hospital, church, , orshieldunlawfulaliens,to 13 A.R.S.§13-2929 isdesigned thestateunlawfullyfor or recklesslydisregardsthat drugs andillegalaliens. This aff’d inrelevantpartby Maricopa Cnty.Bd.of , 219Ariz.276,286-88, y tootherwiselaw- r thestateunlawfully CriminalCode.First, courtshavealready who is inviolation r conductsaroutine a validsearchof to“stopany person etc . No.

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

IV. LEGAL STANDARD burden bypermittingtheofficertotransp arrest andprocessing.A.R.S.§11-1051(D agent thatapersonisremovable,thisprov requisite authorityforArizona enforcement officerreceivesconfirmation fro law enforcementofficersto purpose ofassistingwith th violations ofthefederalimmigration laws.” have conferred onstatepolicethenecessary Tab 4at13.Inreachingtheseconclusions, state policefromarrestingalienson of LegalCounselpreparedinwhichitconclu A.R.S. §13-3883(A)(5).Thisprovisionis committed anypublicoffensethatmakesthe when “theofficerhas probable A.R.S. §13-3883(A)toarrestapersonwit in Arizonahavebeenunlawfu Mexico andthefactthat100% (discussing hisexperienceincombating th the publicinterest.” preliminary relief,that thebalanceofequities succeed onthemerits,th (2008); Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRBDocument63Filed07/20/10Page19of48 11751129

Neither Section6noranyotherfederal, st Section 6ofSB1070adds “A plaintiffseekingapreliminary injuncti see alsoStormans, Inc. 5.

Section 6(A.R.S.§13-3883) Winter v.Natural Res.Def.Council,Inc. Winter at heislikelytosufferirre eir criminalenterprise. determine whetherapersonis lly presentinthecountry).

’s lawenforcementofficers. of the runners his team has oftherunnershisteam causetobelieve.[t]hepersonbearrestedhas

v. Selecky to theauthorityArizona peace officershaveunder the basisofcivildeportability.” ort thepersontoafederalfacility. - 14 , 586F.3d 1109,1127(9th ision permitstheofficertohandleinitial e importation of“blacktarheroin”from hout awarrantbyauthorizing such arrests ) furtherreducesthefederalgovernment’s based uponamemorandum theDOJ’s Office however,theDOJpresumedthat“States state-lawauthoritytomakearrestsfor Id. ded thatfederallawdoesnot“preclude[] person removablefromtheUnitedStates.” m thefederalgovernment oritsauthorized tips inhisfavor,andthat aninjunctionisin at2.A.R.S.§13- ate, orlocallawauthorizesArizona’s on mustestablishthatheislikelyto parable harmintheabsenceof See , e.g. removable. If,however,alaw arrested forsellingtheheroin , GloverDecl.¶¶10-13 , 129S. Ct. 365,374 3883(A) providesthe Cir.2009).“[I]thas See AdamsDecl.

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

. PLAINTIFF ISNOTLIKELY V. (quoting not begrantedunlessthemovant, byaclearsh 2005) (apreliminaryinjunction“‘isanextrao 33 (1850)); which theAct wouldbevalid.” successfully, sincethechallenger the Constitution.” embodying thewillof the peoplefrombeingim challenges; and(3)“threaten toshortcircu contrary tothefundamental principleofjudi attached totheCoastalCommission’sperm California CoastalCommissi case.’” long beenheldthataninjunctionis‘tobe 14 Wash. State Grangev.Wash. State Republican Party statute’s facialrequirements andspeculateab When consideringafacialchallenge,theCour possible setofpermitconditionsnotpre-empted 588 (emphasis added). TheCourt thenheld thattheCommission’s “identificationofa challenge “must stand orfallonthequestion[of] whether [was] toprohibit[theplainti argument “thattheCoastalCommission’strue federal law.480U.S.572(1987).TheCo Supremacy Clauseeventhough rejected afacialchallengetothe Coas Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRBDocument63Filed07/20/10Page20of48 11751129 Facialchallengesaredisfavored becauseth

“A facial challenge to a legislative Actis “A facialchallengetoalegislative . PlaintiffHas aHeavy Burden of Es A. Rizzo v.Goode Mazurek v.Armstrong see alsoMoorev.Consol.EdisonCo.ofN.Y. of SB1070AreFacially Unconstitutional Wash. State Grange , 423U.S.362,378(1976)(quoting

ff’s] miningentirely”andheld on v.GraniteRockCo. , 520U.S.968,972(1997)). application of therequirements United States v.Salerno must establishthatnosetof tal Commission’s permit requirements underthe , 552U.S.at 450-51. TOSUCCEEDONTHEMERITS - 15 used sparingly, andonl it thedemocratic processbypreventing laws urt specificallyrejectedtheplaintiff’s it requirement wouldbepre-empted.” cial restraint”withrespect toconstitutional out ‘hypothetical’ or‘imaginary’ cases.” ey: (1)“oftenrestonspeculation;” (2)“run rdinary anddrasticremedy.thatshould t “must becarefulnottogobeyond the owing, carriestheburde purpose inenforcingapermitrequirement .themostdifficultchallengetomount plemented inamanner consistentwith byfederallaw[was tablishing thatSections 2through 6 , forexample,theSupremeCourt , 552U.S.442, 450(2008). , 481U.S.739,745(1987). , 409F.3d 506,510(2dCir.

any possible that theplaintiff’sfacial Irwin v.Dixion circumstancesexistsunder could y inaclearandplain ] sufficienttorebuff conflictwith setofconditions n ofpersuasion’”) , 9How. 10,

14 In Id. at

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Constr. TradesCouncil 790 (9th Cir. 2008)(quoting legislature].’” avoid suchproblems unlesssuchconstructionis statute wouldraiseseriousconstitutionalprob finding thatSections2throug possible thatthosechargedwithwritingand in obediencetohisdutyuntilth implement enforcement officerswill (1985)). Finally,plaintiffmustovercom 470, 475(1996)(quoting lives, limbs, health,comfort, andquietofallpersons.” have hadgreatlatitudeunder ‘the statuteconsistentlywith U.S. 220,279-80 (2005) 385 U.S.374, 21; (7)RagsdaleDecl. (doc.27-4)¶¶40-42,44 9; 3:12-16, 3:23-25; 4:3-10, Decl. (doc.27-9)¶¶4-8; (5)HarrisDecl.(doc (doc. 27-6)¶¶6-10;(3) EstradaDecl.(doc. Steinberg Decl.(doc. 27-1) ¶¶9-11, 13-14, 33, plaintiff reliesonthegroundsthattheycont (doc. 27-3) ¶¶ 4,15-17,20;and(8) GentileDecl.(doc.27-7) ¶10. acceptable constructionofastatutewould

[the plaintiff’s]facialchallenge 16 15 Refining Co.v.Ryan where analternativeinterpreta to construethestatuteavoid Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRBDocument63Filed07/20/10Page21of48 11751129 GovernorBrewerobjectstothefollowing See alsoSosav.DIRECTV,Inc.

Plaintiff mustalsoovercomethreewelles . NoneoftheChallengedSect B. To establishitsclaimthatfederallawim 397 (1967)). Ctr. forBio-EthicalReform,In , 293U.S. 388,446(19 , 485U.S.568,575(1988)).

(“[In] facialinvaliditycases. Metro. LifeIns.Co.v.Massachusetts

4:11-13; 5:13-20;6:20-23; (6) Aytes Decl.(doc.27-2)¶¶13, Edward J.DeBartoloCorp. v.Fla.Gulf CoastBldg.& the constitutional command.’”)(quoting their policepowerstolegislat h 6areunconstitutional.First, tion ofthestatuteis‘fairly such problems.”)(citationsomitted). tothepermitrequirement.” e contraryisshown..”); , 437F.3d 923,939(9th Cir. SB 1070inaconstitutionalmanner. e thepresumptionthatArizona’slaw - 16 raise seriousconstitu ain legalconclusionsorpurespeculation: (1) ions ofSB1070ArePreempted 27-8) ¶¶4-9,11,12-15 35) (“Everypublicofficerispresumedtoact portions ofthedeclarationsuponwhich implementing legislati lems, courts‘willconstruethestatuteto c. v.L.A.Cnty.SheriffDep’t . 27-10)¶¶ at1:23-24;2:1-2; 2:15-17; 3:1- 34,44,45,52-54, 57; -45, 47-48,50-52, 54; pliedly preempts SB1 plainlycontraryto the intentof[the tablished rulesthatmilitateagainsta tablished 15 Second,that“Statestraditionally Medtronic, Inc.v.Lohr . weoughttopresumewhenever UnitedStates v.Booker possible,’ [courts] areobligated e astotheprotectionof “[w]here aconstructionof “[w]here Id. 2006)(“[I]fanotherwise , 471U.S.724, 756 at589. tional problems,and , 17-19;(4)Villasenor on willandcanapply (2)SilverDecl. (7)PalmatierDecl. 070, plaintiffmust Time, Inc.v.Hill, See Panama , 533F.3d 780, 16

, 518U.S. , 543

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

34. aliens and,therefore,are“atoddswithcong and priorities”becausetheiren but theyare moresuccinctlyaddressed asoneargument. demonstrate that:(1)SB1070purports tore 18 17 power; (2)federallawoccupiesthefield;or 1010 (9thCir.2007)(citations sufficient toestablishconflictpreemption. Neither “[t]ensionbetweenfederalandstat NVW, 2007U.S.Dist.LEXIS96 objectives ofCongress.’” stands asanobstacletotheaccomplishmen “when ‘compliance withboth State andfederal verify immigration statusduring the courseof states that,beforeSB1070, argued thatanyprovisi (June 28,2010); Napolitano De Canasv.Bica Sections 2through omitted). Plaintiffhasnotme the clearandmanifest purpose ofCongress.’” police powersoftheStateswerenottobe which theSupreme Courthasheldapplies“[i]na Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRBDocument63Filed07/20/10Page22of48 11751129 Plaintiffseparatelyaddresses thealleged “Federalpreemptioncan beeitherexpressorimplied.” 18 Thepremises underlyingthis argument de

Plaintiff argues thatA.R.S.§§11-1051 Plaintiff argues , 558F.3d856,863(9th Cir.2009), . A.R.S.§§11-1051 and 13-3883( 1. Altria Group,Inc.v.Good , 424U.S.351,355-63 (1976). 6 of SB1070. . A.R.S.§§11-1051and13-3 i. conflict withfederal on offederal lawexpressly preempts SB1070. Ariz. Contractors Ass’nv.Napolitano harassment oflawfullypresentpersons “Arizona policehadthesame discretionto decidewhetherto t thatburdenwithrespectto forcement willresultintheha omitted). Plaintiffmustal 194, at*25(D.Ariz.Dec. - 17 superseded bytheFederalActunlessthatwas law andpriorities e law”nora“hypotheticalconflict”is t andexecutionof Incalza v.FendiN.Am.,Inc. , 129S.Ct.538,543( harassment thatSections 2and6willcause, (3)SB1070conflictswithfederallaw. ressional objectives.”Pl.Mot.at25-29, 32- gulate immigration,anexclusivelyfederal alawfulstopasanyotherstateorfederal and 13-3883(A)conflictwith“federallaw Wyeth cert. granted law isimpossible,orwhenthestate monstrate itsabsurdity.First,plaintiff 17 ll pre-emptioncases,.thatthehistoric “Conflictpreemption”ispresentonly , 129S.Ct.at1194-95(citation A) (Sections2and6)donot 883(A) willnotresultinthe anyofitschallengesto so overcomethepresumption, Chicanos PorLa Causa, Inc.v. 21, 2007)(citationsomitted). , 2010U.S.LEXIS5321 rassment oflawfullypresent the fullpurposesand , No.CV07-1355-PHX- 2008). Plaintiff hasnot

, 479F.3d1005, See

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Johnson investigating immigr 270 F.3d at617.Thisisthesame standard available at Martinez untiltheINS officercouldfurthe enforcement officersfromrepeatedlyi congressional objectivesbecauseitmerelycodi harassment oflawfullypresentaliens.A.R. stop,” plaintiff’sstatementde law enforcementofficers“toverifyimmigrat policies). However,byconcedingthatthe any But it is well established thataninvestigatio But itiswellestablished Law enforcement hasneveroperated (andcould immigration statusofpersonswho arelawfully requirement ofabsolutecertainty”andwillne lawfully present,the[Oregon] policeoffi a ‘greencard’.without offeringanyot 75778 (9thCir.Jan.18, 2008)(arguingthat 2362319 (emphasisadded); BriefforResp’tat10, officers from exercising suchdiscretion. officers fromexercising Decl. ¶13; Second, plaintiff takes i the state of immigration lawasit the stateofimmigration required toignorePetitioners’voluntaryand required toignorePetitioners’illegalstatus the petitioners’viewoflawthat“either Samayoa-Martinez v.Gonzales officers shouldignorepossibleimmigration violations. enforcement agenciesinAriz of theprimary reasonsthattheArizonaLegi law enforcementofficer.”Pl.Mot.at25.As 19 law enforcement and letthem go”andarguing that “[ Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRBDocument63Filed07/20/10Page23of48 11751129 Even plaintiffhasstrongly opposed theno violation oflaw–including immigr

, 129S.Ct.7 see also 2008 WL588460. ,” whichthefederalgovernment argue CutlerDecl.¶¶35-42 (discussing th ation violations. 81, 786(2009);

ona hadimplementedpolicies feats itsargumentthatsuch ssue withthefactthat“r , No.04-74220 (9th Cir. Feb. has beenenforcedfordecades”), e ] Muehler ither interpretationresults See gnoring possibleimmigration violations. ation violations–isproper. cer hadsufficientjus her explanationtodemonstrate thathewas - 18 See , r investigatehisimmigration status”), thefederalgovernment haslongemployed for [themilitarypoliceofficer]waslegally e.g. Constitution andfederal S. §11-1051(B)willnotinterferewithany and letthemgo,ortheINSwaslegally n predicatedupon“reas once “Martinezadmitted thathedidnothave slature enactedSB1070wasthatcertainlaw tion thatstateandlocallawenforcement ion statusduringthecourseofalawful , uncoerced confessionof afactualmatter,plaintiffisincorrect.One cessarily resultininve , 544U.S. at 100-01; e.g. , BriefforAppelleeat10, fies existingauthorit present inthecountry.Pl.Mot.at26-27. never operate)inabsolutecertainties. , GloverDecl.¶¶15-16;Glidewell Martinez-Medin easonable suspicionis nota d was“patentlyabsurd andisnot See e negativeimpact ofsanctuary inquiries willresultinthe restricting , e.g. 10, 2006)(sharplydisputing tification todetain , BriefforResp’tat14, inwhollyemasculated available at a v.Mukasey Rodriguez-Arreola law permitArizona’s onable suspicion”of y andprohibitslaw stigations intothe See theirillegalstatus lawenforcement , United Statesv. e.g. , Arizona v. 2006WL 19 , No.06-

,

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

capable ofoperatingunderthes Plaintiff would presumably concede thatits that [theBorderPatrolAgen Guillen

result inharassmentof lawfullypresent because thisisafaci Noneofplaintiff’s argumentssuggest and 13-3883(A)will processing, thereby and, inconnection withA.R.S. §11-1051(D), 3883(A) merelyprovidesArizona’slawenfo so, DHSwillconfirmthataparticularalien regarding the immigration statusofaliens. 1051, Arizona’slawenforcementofficers officers tomakedeterminationsregarding or anyother provisionofst verify removability.”Pl.Mot.at33.Thisis Fourth,plaintiffarguesthatA.R.S. § arrests ofalienswhoareremovable, “doe apprehension. status,onlytohavethecriminalcommit immigration with minoroffensesandletthecriminal instances inwhichlawenforc U.S.C. §§1373and1644.This at 28.ButCongresshasestablishedno Third, plaintiffsuggeststhataninvestiga only appropriatefor“personswhoaresuspected should Arizona’slawenforcem Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRBDocument63Filed07/20/10Page24of48 11751129

, No.97-50645(9thCir.1988)(arguingthat See , e.g. reducing al challenge,themere necessarily , Glidewell Decl.¶¶3-6,10-15. ate orfederallawauthorizesArizona’senforcement t had]reasonablesu the burden onDHS. ement officershavestopped violent criminals inconnection e wellestablishedprinciples ent officersbepresumed to statementalsofailstoreco resultintheharassment ofla such priorityor s gowithoutanyinvestigationintotheir aliens isinsuffici s notdependuponcoor - 19 willregularlycommunicatewithDHS a person’sremovability. possibility There isasubstantial is removable.IfDHSdoesso,A.R.S.§13- law enforcementofficers(inallareas)are 13-3883(A), whichauthorizeswarrantless simplyincorrect.NothingineitherSB1070 rcement officers with rcement officerswith that implementationof transportthepersondirectlytoDHSfor tion intoaperson’simmigration statusis spicion tostopSanchez-Guillen’scar”). of seriouscriminaloffenses.”Pl.Mot. “[t]he district court correctlyfound districtcourt “[t]he another that A.R.S.§11-1051(B) policy objective. ent toinvalidateit. knowhowtodotheirjob. gnize thattherearenumerous and standards. So, too, violent crime beforehis wfully presentaliens. And dination withDHSto likelihood that,indoing the abilitytoarrest UnderA.R.S.§11- A.R.S. See

§§ 11-1051

, e.g. could , 8

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Decl.¶¶ 23-25; Marino Decl.¶¶25-26; Kir country alreadyaredoing preciselywhat any imposition onICE at all, the factthatArizona’s287(g) officerscanve be appropriatelyimplemented, but itignores only isthisargumentinconsis present contact LESCfor“ entirely uponplaintiff’smisconceptionthat 1644. the inquiriesArizona’slawen the enforcement offederalimmigration laws,butithas v. UnitedStates federal policyof “burden federalresourcesand law onaparitywithstatelaw.” Supremacy Clause,Arizona’slawenforcemento in amannerthatenablesitto See the DoD—thathaspowertopre-empt of Defense’s(“DoD”)preemption challengeto to carryoutthewillofCongre and policypriorities”(Pl.Mot. preempted becausetheywill“burdenfederal

Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRBDocument63Filed07/20/10Page25of48 11751129 8U.S.C.§§1373and1644.

In anyevent,plaintiff’sspeculationth Plaintiff’s secondargument–thatA. and

every , 495U.S.423,442(1990).Here encouraging personarrestedinthestate.”Pl every i A.R.S.§§11-1051and13-3 ii. person stopped who is resources and thefactthatmany law en comply withthis congressiona cooperation among localauthoritiesin federal, state,and tent withthemannerinwhic forcement officerswillmake ss. AstheSupremeCourtheld impede federalenforcementa at30-32)–isequallyflawed.ThesolemissionofDHS Brandon DHS simply hasnochoicebut

A.R.S.§11-1051(B)requires. , 277F.3d at942; otherwisevalidstatelaws..” - 20 kham Decl. ¶ 6; GafvertDecl.¶¶9-10; kham Decl.¶6; R.S. §§11-1051an Arizona’s lawenforcementofficerswill rify individuals’ statuswithout immigration at A.R.S.§§11-10 the qualificationsinA.R.S. §11-1051(B), resources andimpede a NorthDakotalaw:“ItisCongress—not reasonably suspectedtobeunlawfully fficers areexpectedto“totreatfederal , Congresshasnotonly codifieda . Mot.at30(emphasis added).Not mandated 883(A) willnotburdenfederal h ArizonaexpectstheActto forcement agenci see also under A.R.S.§11-1051(B). l mandate.Further,underthe nd policypriorities”isbased inrejectingtheDepartment d 13-3883(A)are toallocateitsresources 51 and13-3883(A)will thatDHSrespondto 8U.S.C. §§1373and federal enforcement See e.g. North Dakota es acrossthe Vasquez

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

expects “anadministrativeregulationtodeclar indicate anyintenttopreemptstatelawandth the plaintiffproved immunized drug to preemptastatutethat responsibility topolicefraud.”); 341, 347(2001)(“Statelawfraud-on-the-FD (citation omitted).Further,theapplicablefede to standbyboth concepts andtotolerate awareness oftheoperationstatelawina preempted concurrent stateregulation); Gould, Inc. state lawissimplyirrelevant. 424 U.S. at358.Whether INA might besocomprehensive that Subtitle B,§415,110 Stat. V, SubtitleA,§503(b)(2), 104Stat.5049(Nov (Nov. 14,1986);P.L.100-525, U.S. at357. manifest purposeofCongress” to preemption underthistheory, legislates inanareafullyoccupiedbyCo federal penaltiesforviolations §§ 11-1051and McGlone Decl.¶¶21-22.Plaintiffsimplyha 21 20 face. any federalpoliciesthatwouldjustify afinding enacted thesestatutesin (“‘The caseforfederalpre-emptionispartic expressly preempted concurrent stateregulation. Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRBDocument63Filed07/20/10Page26of48 11751129 TheSupremeCourthasalsoexpresslyconsid See 66 Stat.224and 22

Plaintiff firstarguesthatSection3(A , 475U.S.282,285-87(1 20 Nothing in thehistory oftheINA . A.R.S.§13-1509(Section 3) 2. 13-3883(A) will fraudontheFDA). nor regulatesinafederallyoccupiedfield 1952and hassinceamended the INAfivetimes, other

3009-669 (Sept.30,1996). plaintiff must demonstrate thatitwasthe“clearand of8U.S.C.§§1304(e)and See Wis.Dep’tofIndus.,Labor &Human Relations v. §8(i),102Stat.251 congressionalactsaresoco Kobar necessarily 5 (June27,1952);P.L. 99- preclude harmonious stateaction. 986) (holding that theNa it leavesnoroomforstateaction. , 378F. Supp.2dat Buckman Co.v.Pls.’LegalComm. whatever tensionthere[is]betweenthem.’”) ngress.” Pl.Mot.at34-36.Toestablish - 21 manufacturers frompunitivedamagesunless field ofinterest,andhasnonethelessdecided ularly weakwhereCong burdenfederalresourcesorinterferewith .R.S. §13-1509),whic A claimsinevitablyconflictwiththeFDA’s s not(andcannot)dem e Supreme Courthasrepeatedlyheldthatit e anyintentiontopre- ral regulations(8C.F. thattheprovisionsarepreemptedontheir . 29,1990);P.L.104-20 ered andrejectedth supports suchaconclusion.Congress See neither conflicts 7 (Oct.24,1988);P.L. 101-649,Title , e.g. , 1169-75 (applying 1306, “ispreemptedbecauseit Wyeth mprehensive astopreempt 653, §10,100Stat.3657 tional LaborRelationsAct , 129S.Ct.at1200 h incorporatesthe e possibilitythatthe onstrate thatA.R.S. ress hasindicatedits empt statelawwith R. Part264)donot with federallaw See DeCanas 8, DivC,TitleIV, See DeCanas 21 buthas never , 531U.S. Buckman , 424 ,

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

v. Automated Med.Labs.,Inc. conclusion thatCongress intendedtooustst which theCourtdecided11yearsbeforeCo some specificity.” Supreme Courtinvalidatedin the INA.’” as anobstacletoaccomplishment andexecut with thefederalimmigrationlawsandregulations require thatpersonscomplywithfederalla enforcement prioritiesinthatfield.”Pl.Mot. Cir. 1999)). 1983), U.S. at56,74.A.R.S. §13- provision “foralienregistrationinasingle payment of annualfees,whichtheCourtfou contends thatamere with federal law confusesseveralprinciples (2009) (citationsomitted). preemption. 1509(F). Becausethestateandfederalstat authorization from thefederalgovernment to narrower thanfederallawbecauseit“doe violations oftheexactsame federalregistra only permitsArizonatoimpos Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRBDocument63Filed07/20/10Page27of48 11751129

The Supreme Court’sholding in Plaintiff alsoarguesthatA.R.S.§ Plaintiff’s argumentthat Arizona’s smugg overruled onother groundsby In reJoseC. See Plyler . A.R.S.§13-2319(Section 4) 3. Cal. CoastalComm’n difference , 457U.S.at225; , 198P.3d 1087,1100(Cal. 2009), 1509 addsnothing toanalien’s , 471U.S.707, 718(1985)). Hines e thesamepenaltiesthatfederallawmayimposefor betweenA.R.S. §13-2319 andthefederal smuggling imposed Hodgers-Durgin v. DeLaVina Hines v.Davidowitz 13-1509 “conflictswithfederallawand , 480U.S.at582-83 (citing - 22 s notapplyto apersonwhomaintains Gonzales v.Peoria w. “Where state law ‘mandates compliance w. “Wherestatelaw‘mandates utes haveidenticalpurposes,thereisno integrated and all-embracing system.” 312 tion requirements. A.R.S.§13-1509 iseven ate law. The Pennsylvania statute the ate law.ThePennsylvaniastatutethe ngress enactedtheINA of preemption. First,plaintifferroneously nd conflicted withthefederalgovernment’s ion ofcongressionalobjectivesembodied in at34.ButallA.R.S.§13-1509doesis remain intheUnitedStates.”A.R.S.§13- additional ling statute(A.R.S.§13-2319) conflicts , itcannotbesaid[thatstatelaw] stands does notconflictwithfederallaw registration requirements and cert. denied , 312U.S. 52,63-64(1941)– registration requirements.It , 722F.2d 468,474(9th Cir. – doesnotsupporta Hillsborough Cnty. , 199F.3d1037(9th , 129S.Ct.2804

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

only 13-2319. Undertheplainlanguageofst being transported is[unlawfully commercial purpose; and(4) “while knowing or the transportofapersonwhois[unlawfully intent topromote oraidhuman smuggling”; (2 criminal negligenceisnotenough. can establishthe“knowledge”elementonly unlawfully presentinthecount (1) intenttosmuggle foracommercial purpose 219 Ariz.276,283,196 of conspiracyunderfederal law, held: knowingly, recklesslyorwithcriminal comply withboth statute (8U.S.C.§1324)isaconflict. 22 statute isbroaderthan thefederalstatute. onlyallegedconflictth (citation omitted).The accomplishment andexecutionofthefullpur State andfederallawisimpossible, or[that] To establishconflictpreemption, plaintiffmu LEXIS 96194,at*25(“Ameredifferencebetween at 42n.37. The statutorily-defined mentalst 1385 (7thCir.1991),to under neither impedesthefederalgovernment’s Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRBDocument63Filed07/20/10Page28of48 11751129 UnderArizonalaw,the culpablementalst iftheStateproves beyondareasonabledoub its

Second, plaintiffignores the smuggling statute (8U.S.C.§1324)nor Townsend laws. P.3d 879, 886(App. 2008).The st support itsargumentthatmereneg court, which addressedtheknowledgeelement forthecrime

ates and,instead,cites, ry. Arizona’s Criminal Code makes clear that the State ry. Arizona’sCriminalCodemakesclearthatthe present] .inArizona.” See requisite mental statefor See Ariz.ContractorsAss’n negligence.” A.R.S. §13-105(10). A.R.S. §13-202(C). - 23 ability toprosecute personsforsmuggling See present].inArizona”;(3)fora atute, apersoncanbeconvictedofsmuggling ates forcriminalliab by establishingknowl the state law stands asanobstacletothe the statelaw poses andobjectivesofCongress.’” st demonstrate that“‘ Pl. Mot.at40-41.Thisfact,however, ) “intentionallytransport[s] orprocure[s] at plaintiffidentifiesisthattheArizona and having reasontoknowthat theperson makesitimpossibleforapersonto t thatthepersonch stateandfederallawisnotconflict.”). (2)knowledgethatthepersonis United Statesv.Townsend See Statev.Barragan-Sierra ligence issufficient.Pl.Mot. atute, therefore,requiresboth: 22 a convictionunderA.R.S. § Plaintiffignoresthese ility are“intentionally, edge orintent– , 2007U.S.Dist. compliance withboth arged: (1)“withthe , 924F.2d Id. ,

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

field (regulationofthe employmentofillegal to perform]work.”Pl.Mot.at42-44.To in theharassmentoflawfu 2005. thathasresulted sincetheArizon harassment smuggle themselves”). the INA.byallowingfor theprosecutionof 1113 (finding that MaricopaCounty’ssmuggling activity.” choice Immigration Reform andControlActof1986 state interestofattemptingtocu human smuggling lawfurthers, 196 P.3d at890.Insoholding, theCour smuggling aspectofA.R.S.§13-2319 waspr Barragan-Sierra presence because it“allow[s] forthepunishment unsupportable. transportation providers to“rejectbusin pl will beimpactedbythestatute.Therefore, 23 Townsend Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRBDocument63Filed07/20/10Page29of48 11751129 Asithaswithothersections oftheAct,pl

knowledge canbeinferredfr negligent innotknowingit, that someone has‘reasonto know’ so Cerro, . Federallawdoesnotoccupythefieldof 4. Plaintiff nextarguesthatA.R.S.§13-2928 Third, plaintifferroneouslyarguesthat know. Takenliterallythelatterformul The casessometimes saymust know,lessfrequently must havereasonto conspiracy).” reasonable doubtofanelement curious indeed,thata not , 924F.2d at1391n.2. Id. to criminallypenalizeunl (emphasis added); “itshouldnotbetakenliterally.A , theArizonaCourtofAppealsreje Cerro, lly presentaliens.Plaintiff failstopresentany 775F.2dat911.

conviction canbeupheld by aclassicexampleofitspolicepower rb the‘cultureoflawlessness’ see alsoWeAreAm./SomosAm. 23 Thereisnoreasontobelievethattaxiandbusdrivers in thepresentcontextitmeansonlythat awfully presentaliensfo om circumstantial evidence of thecrime(knowledge ess fromlawfullypresentaliens”is t “ha[d] nodifficultyfindingthatArizona’s - 24 demonstrate thatCongresshasoccupiedthe aintiff alsoarguesthat mething means thathewouldbe a LegislatureenactedA.R.S. §13-2319in . ation wouldimply aintiff’s argument thatthestatutewillcause aintiff’s argument eempted byfederallaw.219Ariz. at287, A.R.S. §13-2319cr (“IRCA”)“reflectsCongress’sdeliberate aliens), plaintiffmustdemonstrate thata undocumented immigrants conspiringto lthough usuallyinthelawtosay But aswewentontopoint outin of ‘self-smuggling.’” Pl.Mot.at41.In conflictswithfederallawbecausethe policy “appears tofilltheintersticesof cted anargumentthattheself- without proofbeyonda r performing[orattempting thathasarisenaroundthis employee something very . , 594F.Supp. 2dat iminalizes unlawful the statutewillresult , thelegitimate sanctions evidence ofany

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

laws thatimposecivilorcrimin 1324a(h)(2); Supreme Courtrecognizedtheimportant stat point becauseitdemonstratesth adopting criminalsanctionsagai for prescriptiondrugs.”).Plaintiff’sargum emption provision formedical devicesin1976 whatever tensionthere of interest,andhasnonethelessdecidedto weak whereCongresshasindicateditsawarene U.S. at357(emphasisadded).Again,“‘[t]he with federallawswas‘ “complete ousterofstatepowerincludingstat protect workerswith broad authority undertheirpolicepowers yet chose illegal aliens fromneighboringMexi illegal aliens Id. identified areequallyacute here. illegal immigration“amounts to things, thatthelossresulting toArizona’slo Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRBDocument63Filed07/20/10Page30of48 11751129 at356-57.Arizonaisalsoaborderstateth

Here, Congresscouldhave,butchose not influx intothatStateofillegal problems areparticularlyacuteinCa conditions candiminishtheeffectiv legally admittedaliens;andemployme seriously depresswagescalesand jobs onsubstandardtermsasto citizens andlegallyadmittedaliensofjobs;acceptance Employment ofillegalaliensinti Preemption cannotbelightlyinferred in not to expressly preclude them at the statelevel. toexpresslyprecludethematthe Wyeth , 129S.Ct.at1196(“[W]hen in theState.” the clearandmanifestpurpose of Congress [is] betweenthem.’” al sanctionsuponemployees. at Congressrecogniz nst theemployee(Pl.Mot.at more than$200million”); See De Canas co” andtheCaliforniaproblems Borjas Aff. Ex. 1 at ¶ 7 (stating, among other BorjasAff.Ex.1at¶ 7 (stating, aliens fromneig wagesandworkin mes ofhighunemploymentdeprives working conditionsofcitizensand - 25 to regulatetheemployment relationshipto standbybothconcep eness oflaborunions. These local ent thatCongressconsideredandrejected lifornia inlightofthesignificant w-skilled authorizedworkers asaresultof , 424U.S. at356.In e intereststhatsuchregulationserves: Wyeth nt ofillegalaliensundersuch e powerto promulgate lawsnotinconflict case forfederalpre-emptionisparticularly at receivesa“significantinflux.of thisinstancebecause“Statespossess . itdeclinedtoenactsuchaprovision ss oftheoperationstatelawinafield to, expresslypreempt stateandlocal Congress enactedanexpresspre- , 129S.Ct.at1200(citationomitted). ed thepotentialforsuchregulations, hboring Mexico. g conditions can Ariz. ContractorsAss’n Inc.v. 44)onlyunderscoresthis

See by illegalaliensof ts andtotolerate 8U.S.C.§ De Canas .’” De Canas

De Canas , the , 424 Court Court

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

constitutional power.” deals withaliensisaregulationofimmigr added). TheSupreme Court“hasneverheld under which it defines“whoshouldorshou preempted byfederal law. Accordingly, A.R.S. §13-2928 iswellw of whatitmeansto“regulateimmigration.”A regulation ofimmigration, Pl.Mot. at44-45, 225 (1982). Candelaria 24 statute atissuein problems andistailoredtoco federal objectivesandfurthe have someauthoritytoactwith Island Executive Order 08-01). Doherty Decl. ¶¶4-9(describingRhodeIsla relies uponanExecutive Order andstatepolice St. §171(2010);U.C.A. §17-22-9.5; Va.Co (2010); Mo.Rev.Stat. §577.680, schemes similartoSB 1070. criminal offense Rather, A.R.S.§13-2929will admitted totheUnitedStates encourage analientocome applies the personwouldbeviolating Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRBDocument63Filed07/20/10Page31of48 11751129 Colorado,Georgia,Oklahoma,Missouri,

Plaintiff’s argumentthat A.R.S. §13-2929doesnotpurportto only , 534F.Supp. 2d1036,1049(D. Ariz. topersonswhoengage insuch conduct whilecommitting some other a legalentrant . A.R.S.§13-2929(Section 5) 5. totransport,move, conceal, harbor, De Canas Id. at 355.Infact,theCourthase

, SB1070“focuses directly mayremain.” rs alegitimatestategoal.” or theconditionsuponwhich mbat effectivelytheperceived See immigration lawstodoso. this stateifthepersonknows make itunlawfulforaperson ld notbeadmittedintothe

respecttoillegalaliens,at A.R.S. §13-2929(fromSection5ofSB1070)isa C.R.S.29-29-103(1)(2 67.307, 577.675; 21Okl.St ithin Arizona’spolicepowersandisnot - 26 ation and thus persepre-empted bythis De Canas Utah,andWashingtonhave statutory nd StatePolice’simplementation ofRhode regulate whoshould orshouldnotbe takesanoverlybroa that everystateenactmentwhichinanyway de Ann. §19.2-81.6 (2010).Rhode Island statute isa“regulationofimmigration” if policies toverifyimmigration status. doesnotregulateimmigration 2008). And,just liketheCalifornia , 424U.S.at354-55 (emphasis or shieldunlawfulaliens,to 24 upon theseessentiallylocal

009); O.C.G.A. §42.4.14 Plyler v.Doe country, andtheconditions xpressly held that“theStatesdo The factthatthisstatute least wheresuchactionmirrors a legalentrant or recklesslydisregardsthat evils.” 424U.S. at357. who is inviolationofa . §446(A) (2010); 22Okl. d andunsupported view , 457U.S. 202, mayremain. See

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Canas statutes in statutes atissuein fields ofimmigration andforeign affairs” within thecountry sought toregulate purelynational conc requirements andcriminal sanctions forsediti Id. recognized: plaintiff advancesandexplicitlyheldthat“the plaintiff failstorecognizethattheSupr undisputed propositionthatimmigrationpo plaintiff citesnumerouscasesanddeclaratio statute” doesnotmandate afindingofpreemption. it is 25. Thepremiseofplaintiff’s Supreme Courtprecedentandtheauthoritiesupon impermissibly conflictswithU.S.forei criminal offensedemonstrates aliens toassistintheircriminal Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRBDocument63Filed07/20/10Page32of48 11751129

per se , 424U.S.at363.However,theCourtal

The state regulationifallstat to discusstherelevantcongressionalen state regulation. irrelevant iftheConstitutionofitsow fortheexistence immigration, Hines v.Davidowitz [T]here wouldhavebeennoneed, in Plaintiff’s argumentthatSB1070“i . Plaintiff’sArgumentthatSB C. preempted underthefederal government’s Hines De Canas Objectives IsMerelyAn , 312U.S.52and Hines that Court acknowledged “thepredominance offederalinterestinthe created conflictswith various federallaws and , 312U.S.52,61S.Ct.399, Nelson argument isthat,becauseSB argument that itisdesignedtodeter conduct orenterprise. conduct e regulationofalienswas Pennsylvania v.Nelson –whichinvolvedstate-sp vel non erns and “imposed burdens onaliens gn policy”isunsupport eme Courthasalreadyrejectedtheposition Attempt toSide-Stepthe - 27 that ledtothepreemp s independentlypreemptedbecauseit licy hasforeignpolicyimplications.But cases such asGraham,Takahashi,or cases such ns thatstandfortheunremarkableand n forcerequirespre-emptionofsuch offederalregulationiswholly 1070 InterfereswithForeignPolicy on againsttheUnitedStates –isthatthey fact that aliens are the subjectofastate factthataliensarethe actments infindingpre-emption of so madeclearthat which plaintiff relies. Pl. Mot. at22- whichplaintiffrelies.Pl.Mot. Id. foreignaffairspower.Insupport, at355.As the 85L.Ed.581(1941),even criminals ipso facto , 350U.S. 497(1956). 1070 appliestoillegalaliens, ed bythecontrolling ecific alienregistration tion ofPennsylvania the infirmityinthe the from usingillegal .” De Canas regulationof Id. De Canas at362-63 lawfully Test Court Court See De

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

above, plaintiffhasnotdemonstrated preemption underthe reaffirmed in2008, the “vigorousenforcement” enforcement” incorporate, among otherthings of cooperativeenforcementthefedera to setimmigrationpolicyatthestatelevel. that Congress clearly establishedinstatutes that Congressclearly admission tothecountry); (emphasis added). TheCourt 25 has alreadydeclaredcannot remedy localproblems” andrelatedsolely“t which didnotimplicatethesa Garcia (dismissal ofanantitrust suitu Clayco PetroleumCorp. v. the federal immigration policy); the federalimmigration (state claimsagainstthefederalgovernment illegal aliens. None ofthe casesplaintiffcitesinvolve th aliens thatthefederalgovernment hasdetermined are furthers alegitimatestategoal.” with respecttoillegalaliens reiterated thisdistinctionin here –regulationdesignedtoaddress harm INA §212(h)); victims); (preemption ofCalifornia statuteoflimitations 1920 and1945”); business inthatStatetodisc U.S. 396,401(2003)(preemptionofCalifor statute addressingdetention Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRBDocument63Filed07/20/10Page33of48 11751129

See ChyLungv.Freeman

. SB1070CorrectlyAdoptsFede D. Plaintiff alsoseekstoinvalidateSB1070 Both , 374F.3d1337 (D.C.Cir. Quinchia v.U.S.AttorneyGen. Quinchia De Canas 25

Francis v.INS De Canas Movesian v.VictoriaVersicherungAG see and Exec.Order12989(Feb.13,19 controlsthepreemption inquiry California v.UnitedStates Plyler Occidental Petroleum Corp.

, at least where such action mirrors federal objectives and , atleastwheresuchactionmirrorsfederal Plyler , 92U.S.275,279-80(1875)(s lose informationaboutallpolic work inthiscountry.” policy theExecutiveBranch of analienpost-removal); me foreignpolicyconcernsb distinguished such regulation , 532F.2d 268(2dCi nder thestateactiondoctrine); Zadvydas Plyler addressedthesametypeofregulation thatisatissue 2004) (criminal convictions , holding that“theStatesdohave some authoritytoact , 457U.S.at225. l immigrationlawsand“attritionthrough , 552F.3d 1255(11thCir. - 28 , 533U.S.678(2001)(constructionofafederal e preemption ofstateregulation touching upon Pl. Mot.at12-22.However,Arizona’spolicy Pl. suchas8U.S.C.§§1373and1644(2) specific toArizonaandthattouches upon seekingto recoverfrom adverseimpact of nia statuterequiring“anyinsurerdoing o individuals whom theFederalGovernment : (1)thecooperative forclaims brought byArmenian Genocide ral Law as thePolicyofArizona onthe ground that Id. r. 1976)(constructi , 104F.3d1086(9thCir.1997) not lawfullypresent at363.TheSupreme Courtlater Am. Ins.Ass’nv.Garamendi 96); Exec.Order13465(June6, , 712F.2d 404(9th Cir. 1983) , 578F.3d1052(9th Cir.2009) established in1996and and, forthereasonssetforth ecause itwas“fashionedto tate regulationofaperson’s ies soldinEuropebetween De Canas from thestatelawbeforeit, United States v.Delgado- under 8U.S.C. §1324(a)). enforcement policies 2008) (constructionof it allegedlyattempts test. on ofINA §106); inthecountry.

, 539

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

at 20(citing provisions had“adirect andsubsta the typeofassistancethat SB1 however, was decidedbeforeCongress enact District Courtinvalidated portions ofCalifor addressed thefederalstatutes thatrequi that SB1070willimpermissibly “burden”fe Citizens v.Wilson SB 1070provides abasisforinvalidatingthe Act.In laws regulatingimmigration.” expressly requiresthatthesection“beimplem government’s interestinproviding humanitari or shouldnotremaininth not) provideArizona’slawenfo 2008). Evenplaintiff 26 them. and Congresshasnotonlyinv resources awayfromfederalpriorities”because violations. Thisrequirement cannot,asplai authority tocommunicatewiththefederal in limitedcircumstances,thatArizona’slaw within Arizona’sborders –nor cannot requirethefederalgovernment totake 1070 will(ontheirface)interfe supposedly contravenes. Mot. at17-18. And, plaintiffcannotcitetoany law topreventaliensfromunlaw Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRBDocument63Filed07/20/10Page34of48 11751129 TheCaliforniaDistrict Courtcaseuponwh

See None ofthe casesplaintiffcitessupport Plaintiff’s argumentalsoneglectstodemo 8 U.S.C.§§1373and1644. Garrettv.City ofEscondido , 908F.Supp. 755,769-70(C.D.Ca acknowledges that:“It e country,SB1070doesno

ited suchinquiriesbuthas 070 isdesigned to provide. In re withanyDHSorDOJenfo does SB1070attempttodoso. rcement officersanyauthority to determine whoshould fully enteringandresidingintheUnitedStates..”Pl. ntial impact onimmigration.” The 26 re DHStoprovidesuch information. Further,becauseSB1070doesnot(andcould , 465F.Supp. 2d1043, 10 - 29 government regarding possibleimmigration ntiff argues,“forceadiversionoffederal nia’s Proposition187on enforcement officersex deral resourcesneither acknowledgednor ed 8U.S.C. §§1373and1644,which ich plaintiffreliestosupport itsargument is certainlyaprimary objectiveoffederal an relief.Infact,A.R.S.§11-1051(L) any actionwithrespecttoillegalalien ented inamannerconsistentwithfederal its argumentthatthepolicyexpressedin congressional Congress nstrate howthepoliciesunderlyingSB t interferewiththefederal League ofUnited Latin American l. 1995),for example, aCalifornia required determinesfederalpriorities rcement priorities.Arizona Arres v.IMICornwlius policy thatSB1070 SB1070merelyrequires, ICEtorespond 57 (S.D.Cal. 2006)). ercise theirexisting the groundthat Wilson See case, Pl. Mot. invite

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

prove fraudontheFDA); the Food,Drug,andCosmeticActpreempted st explicitly exemptedorex proved fraudontheFDA). statute thatimmunizeddrugmanufacturers manifestly intendedto limit from companies doingbusine that astatelaw“restrictingth specific range”andthestatelaw“penalize[ed in Arizona. policy ofIllinois,theSeventh did notsupport.Inholding upon aprocedure fordetermining theimmigra aliens inamanner thatisprohibited by Plaintiff generallyallegesthatA.R.S.§13-29 thebu local publicinterest,and not violatetheCommerceClause Clause. Further,evenstatutesthatimpose discriminate andimpose noburdens oninte is A.R.S.§13-2929(fromSection5). an alientocomeor reside challenging only A.R.S. §13-2929(A)(3), whic 2929(A)(1) and(2)relate exclus conceivably encourage orinducean does notdistinguish betweenin-state andout Remcor, Inc. 28 27 added). any risktotheirstatusw entitled toimplement movement ofaliensnordiscriminate ag Plaintiff’s argumentismisguide

Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRBDocument63Filed07/20/10Page35of48 11751129 PlaintiffdoesnotallegethattheActviolates See also

The only provision ofSB1070 . Section5ofSB1070Does E. 27

Crosby v.Nat’lForeignTradeCouncil See , 333F.3d812,815(7thCi A.R.S. §13-2929(A)(3). private understandings ithin thefirm,isaquestionoffederallawalone.” cluded fromsanctions”); Kobar

that theterminationdidnotc economic pressureagainstth in thisstate”violation of e authorityofitsagenciesto ss with Burma” waspreempted because “Congress Circuit heldthat:“Whether rden imposed is outweighed by d asA.R.S.§13-2929does ively tomovementwithin thestate,plaintiffisseemingly , 378F.Supp.2d1166(applying if theyregulateeven-handedl illegalalien,whoisin-state thatplaintiffclaimsvi See [theCommerceClause ainst orburden in r. 2003),theplaintiffwas - 30 Not Violatethe Commerce Clause incidental burdensoninterstate commerce do Pl. Mot.at44-46. Statutes thatdonot from punitivedamagesunlesstheplaintiff rstate commercedonotviolatetheCommerce -of-state illegalalie ] individuals andcond offederalimmigrationpolicy,freefrom 29 “restrictstheinterstatemovementof tion statusofemployees thatfederallaw intra h relatesto“encourag[ing] orinduc[ing] ate lawclaimsthatrequiredplaintiffsto , 530U.S. 363,366-78(2000) (finding Buckman state movement. SinceA.R.S. §13- law. Notably,thissubsection ontravene aclearlyestablished terstate commerce. terstate commerce. e BurmeseGovernmenttoa purchase goodsorservices persons inArres’positionare , 531U.S.341(findingthat not restricttheinterstate olates theCommerceClause ].” Compl.¶67. y toeffectuatealegitimate the benefitstostate. ns, asapersoncould or terminated forinsisting Buckman out-of-state,toreside uct thatCongresshas Id. topreempta

(emphasis 28

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

13-2929(E). 29 offense persons engagedinitwithout (1987). However,“[l]egislation,inagreat against interstatecommerce. principally 3. ThedormantCommerceClause City ofTacoma restriction onpermissible stateregulation. enter orresideinthestate. furtherance oftheirunlawful presence cannot alsotransport,move, conceal,harbororshield violation of law.(emphasis added). recklessly disregardsthatsuchcomingto,enteri encourage orinduceanaliento alien hascometo,enteredorremainsinth alien fromdetectioninthisstate,ifthepe violation oflaw;(2)conceal,harbor,shieldor disregards thatthealienhascometo, furtherance oftheillegalpresencealien § 13-2929.Itsimply provides thatindividuals, aliens canorcannotcome totheState, from otherstatesintoArizona.”Pl.Mot.at Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRBDocument63Filed07/20/10Page36of48 11751129 Exceptions applyfor emergency serv

A.R.S. §13-2929makes itunlawfulforaperson, By negativeimplication,theCommerce A.R.S. § 13-2929 does not “restrict the A.R.S. §13-2929doesnot“restrict , to(1)transport,moveorattempttr . A.R.S.§13-2929does not 2. . A.R.S.§13-2929does notrestr 1. , 241F.3d1235,1238 Id

. (emphasis added). CTS Corp.v.Dynamics ofAm. constituting aregulation ofit, cometoorresideinthis 29

(9thCir.2001); , norcantheyencouragean nor doesitregulateentryinanyway. ices andChildProtective Services. - 31 entered orremainsintheUnitedStates rson knowsorrecklesslydisregardsthatthe See variety ofways, may affectcommerce and 46. Infact,itdoesnotevenaddress whether ansport ormoveanalieninthisstate, attempttoconceal,harbororshieldan , ifthepersonknowsorrecklessly e United States inviolationoflaw; or (3) focusesonstatutesthatdiscriminate movement ofunlawfully presentaliens , Clause hasbeeninterpretedasa who areinviolation of e.g. ng orresidinginthisstateiswillbea violate thecommerceclause , OntheGreenApartments,L.L.C.v. ict interstatemovementofaliens illegal see also stateifthepersonknowsor while inviolation ofacriminal within themeaningof the alienswithinthestate U.S. Const.art.I,§8,cl. illegal , 481U.S.69,87 acriminaloffense alien to See See A.R.S. § A.R.S. illegally in in

,

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

on similarlysituatedIndianaofferors”). nothing inthe IndianaActimposes agreater contention thatanIndianast against interstatecommerce.”); distinguishes thiscasefromthoseinwhicha 437 U.S. 117,126(1978)(dis in-state andout-of-statecomp prohibit theflowofinterstate legitimate localpurpose). the importation oflivebaitfishdidnotviol Taylor the healthandsafetyofitscitizens itself inapositionofeconomicisolation,’itre out-of-state economic interests thatbenef the legislationmightindirectlyaffe legislating onallsubjectsrelatingtothehealth CommerceClausewas (citation omitted).The Constitution.” 31 30

those jealousiesandretaliatorymeasuresth municipal lawswhoseobjectislocaleconomic omitted) (citing Southold v.TownofE. Hampton Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRBDocument63Filed07/20/10Page37of48 11751129 “Theterm discrimination inthis context “Aslongasastatedoesnotneedlesslyobstr

, 477U.S.131,151(1986) A.R.S. §13-2929createsnobarriersag “The centralrationaleforth Huron Portland Cement Co. v.CityofDetroit Or. WasteSys.,Inc.v. Dep’t ofEnvt’lQuality . A.R.S.§13-2929doesnot di i. interests orburdeninterstatecommerce atute discriminates against interstate commerce “because atute discriminatesagainstinterstatecommerce goods,placeaddedcosts uponthem, ordistinguish between cussing that“[t]he absenceofanythesefactorsfully anies inthere see alsoCTS Corp. , 477F.3d38,47(2dCir. (internal citationomitted)(hol e ruleagainstdiscrimination ct thecommerceofcountry.” the integrityofitsnaturalresources.” 31

its theformerandburdens thelatter.” - 32 ate theCommerceClauseasitserveda means differentialtreatment ofin-stateand e Constitutionwasdesignedtoprevent.” tail market. burden onout-of-state offerorsthanitdoes State hasbeenfoundtohave discriminated tains broadregulatory ainst interstate commerce, nordoesit ainst interstatecommerce, uct interstatetradeorattemptto‘place , life,andsafetyoftheircitizens,though protectionism, lawsthat wouldexcite not intended“tocuttheStatesofffrom , 481U.S.at88(rejectingthe See Exxonv.GovernorofMd. scriminate againstout-of-state 2007) (internalquotations , 362U.S.440,444(1960) , 511U.S.93,99(1994)). is toprohibitstateor ding thatMaine’sbanon

authority toprotect Id . at443-44. Maine v. Town of 30

On ,

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

free privatetradeinthenationalmarketplace.” A.R.S. §13-2929doesnotviolatetheCo commerce, itwillstill be upheld 278, 287(1997)(citation omitted).Evenifa effectively prohibittheirtransportationwho Commerce Clausesince“lawsprohibitingth statute prohibitingthe transportationofcertain well. effectuate alegitimatelocalpublicinterest served aswellbyavailable nondiscriminatorymeans. entering orresidinginthecoun real estatetaxexemptionprov Newfound/Owatonna, Inc.v.Town ofHarrison the Green 34 33 32 does notdiscriminateagainstor statute Co-op. Corp. v.ArkansasPub.Serv. Comm’n disturb appreciablytheintersta Clause eventhough“[i]tisnot omitted) (holdingthataparticularratestru Bruce Church Huron unless pre-empted byfederalaction, orunduly commerce nordoesitdistinguish challenge ofA.R.S.§13-2929, F.2d 123,127-32 $50.00 for nonresidents wasanunjustified Circuit heldthatastatuteimposing$5.0 interstate market.”520U. penalize[d] theprincipallynonresidentcust affectedentitie because thestatute“encourage[d] estate taxexemption andlicensefeesdid. unduly burdensome. not, thenabalancingtestwouldstillbeempl Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRBDocument63Filed07/20/10Page38of48 11751129 “Evenhandedlocalregulation to ThereisnoviolationoftheCommerceCl Plaintiffattemptstosupportitsclaim See, e.g.

, 362U.S.at 443. Even ifA.R.S. §13-2929 imposed aburd may , 241F.3dat1238 burden interstate commerce cann , 397U.S.137(1970)(“Where[a] , Seke v.Com. (9th Cir.1951). 34 ii.

See ArkansasElec. S. 564,575-76 (1997). In A.R.S. §13-2929doesnotim interstate commerce (citationomitted). , 482S.E.2d 88,92(Va. ided tocertaininstitutions vi inconceivable that[i te marketforelectricpower.” try effectivelyprohibittheirtr as A.R.S.§13-2929does notfa burdeninterstatecommerce, ifthereisalegitimate lo between in-state andout-of-sta effectuatealegitimate localpublicinterestisvalid Camps by relyingontwoinappositecases.In mmerce Clausebecauseitdoesnot“imped[e] - 33 and 0 commerciallicensefeeforresidents,but , and itseffectsoninterstatecommerceare , and cture wasnotinviolationoftheCommerce , 461U.S.at393-94 (1983)(citing discriminatory burden omers ofbusinessescateringtoaprimarily lly withintheCommonw ause as laws prohibiting illegal aliens from aslawsprohibitingillegalaliens ause oyed todeterminewhet e possessionofcontrolledsubstances ot sustainafacialchallenge. statute isbelievedto , 461U.S.375,395(1983)(citation Anderson controlledsubstancesdoesnotviolatethe 32 burdensome on . . . interstate commerce.” burdensome on.interstate commerce.” , theSupremeCourtheldthatadisparate See Gen.Motors Corp. v.Tracy

Further,ahypotheticalpossibilitythat en oninterstatecommerce,whichitdoes statute regulatesevenhandedlyto s to limit their out-of-state clientele, and s tolimittheirout-of-stateclientele, t] .would besounreasonableasto App.1997)(holding that aVirginia Anderson v.Mullaney Maine are irrelevanttoplaintiff’s cal purposethatcannow be pose anundu olated theCommerceClause ). SinceA.R.S.§13-2929 plaintiff’sclaimmustfail. , 477U.S.at138. ansportation intoArizonaas vor in-stateorout-of-state te commerce,asthereal on nonresidents. 191 discriminate against her theprovisionis ealth aswell.”). e burdenon Arkansas Elec. , theNinth Pike v. Camps , 519U.S. 33

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

illegal Commerce Clause.Pl.Mot.at45.Noneof not outweighthestate’ I PLAINTIFF HASNOTESTA VI. preference forin-state 1070 doesnotdiscriminateagainstout-of-sta interstate commerceisnotsufficienttoestab the applicationofSB1070an intentionally interfereswith subject ofthechallengerestrict 172-73 (1941)).Plaintiff’s Further, theCourtexplained thatthestatute imposed onlyaminor burden oninterstate or thesellersarefromoutsideState, plastic, nonreturnablemilkcont that aMinnesotastatute,wh excessive inrelationtoputativelocalbenefits.”). only incidental,itwillbe 35 threatened injuries.Apreliminaryinjunc territory” isnotpermitted. “attempt byaStatetoprohibit thetransporta persons who arenotresidents ofthestate. in footnote 34. on Massachusetts’allegedintent River atsomepointinthefuture).In Massachusetts merely fearedasliabletooccuratso Plaintiff alsocites the restrictionsarenot in thefurtheranceof Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRBDocument63Filed07/20/10Page39of48 11751129 Plaintiffrelieson

Plaintiff citesonlythreecasestosupport The purpose ofapreliminary injunction For example,in aliens andnoneareapplicabletothiscase. , 282U.S. 660,674(1931)(denying in Camps Edwards v.California commerce. s legitimatepurpose. Minnesota v.CloverLeafCreameryCo. upheldunlesstheburdenimposed and Id reliance ismisplaced.In reliance

interstatecommerce. ich prohibitedmilkretailers . at174,177.Notably, itis d itsspeculationabouttheAct’ Anderson ed individuals from bringing into ainers, withoutregardtowhet to divert water from the wa todivertwaterfromthe me indefinite time in thefuture.” me indefinitetimein Caribbean Marine Services Co., Inc.v.Baldrige Caribbean MarineServicesCo., BLISHED IRREPARABLEHARM , whichareinapposite for thereasonsdescribed did notviolatetheCommerceClause,asit tion willnotbegrante - 34 to supportitsclaim thatA.R.S.§13-2929 commerce. 449 U.S.456,471-72(1981). 449 commerce. Id any legitimateinterest, as thesecasesaddressthetransportationof “regulates evenhandedly tion ofindigentnon-residents intoits lish aviolationoftheCommerce Clause.SB Id te interests, burden commerce, or createa te interests,burdencommerce,or . at161.TheSupreme Courtheld thatan . at471-72,474. is “topreventexistingorpresently its argumentthatSection5violatesthe 35 See Plaintiff’smisunderstanding about Edwards junctive relieftoConnecticutbased Pl. Mot.at45(citing314U.S.160, from selling theirproductsin from selling not illegaltobeindigent, and onsuchcommerceisclearly tershed oftheConnecticut s allegedpotentialimpacton her themilk,containers, , thestatutethatwas d againstsomething , theSupremeCourtheld

the state ,” andthe burden did foundinSB1070. Connecticut v. indigent

,

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

. [the]injuryistoospecu contingencies must occurbefore[the plaintiffs federal observer may becostly.”Thecour their claimofirreparableharmmerely“s on boardcommercialtunaboats”becausethed a preliminaryinjunctionthat 844 F.2d 668,674(9th Cir.19

2010 –two months afterGovernor Brewersigned SB 1070into law. federal lawbasedon acknowledges that“attriti SB1070codifiesArizona’spolicies laws”and“attritionthroughen immigration DHS toprovide.8U.S.C.§§1373(c). system.”Pl.Mot.at13.And, immigration local agenciesintheidentificationofpe comply andCongress hasestablishedapolicy argument isthatCongressestablishesthepo expense of[DHS’s]own requiring DHStorespondinquiriesfrom plaintiff irreparableharm by“plac[ing] §§ 1373and1644.Nevertheless, is notonlyconsistentwith,butmandated relief.” harm” byprovidinginformationtostate U.S.C. §§1373and1644.It Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRBDocument63Filed07/20/10Page40of48 11751129

. TheFederal Government Cannot BeHarmed By Having to Comply A. Ignoring thiscongressional mandate, DHSar Id. at675. With theExpressIntentofCongress new prioritiesandpolicies DHS adop policy priorities.”Pl.Mot.at on throughenforcement” lative toconstituteanirrepara prohibited thegovernment “from placingfemale observers defieslogictosuggestthatDHSwillsuffer“irreparable 88), forexample,theNinthCirc plaintiffarguesthatenfor a significantburdenonDHS resources”by rsons unlawfully presen and localauthorities peculate[d] thataccommodationofafemale - 35 t furtherfoundthatbecause “[m]ultiple Arizona’spolicyofcooperativeenforcement of “cooperativeenforcementfederal Arizona’s lawenforcementofficers“atthe forcement.” SB1070,§1.Plaintiff by, thefederalpoliciessetforthin8U.S.C. licies andprioritieswithwhichDHSmust ’] injurieswouldripen intoconcrete harms. of cooperation between eclarations plaintiffs is gues thatSB 1070isinconflictwith

“one goalofthefederal 50-51. Thefatalflawinthis ble harmjustifyinginjunctive ted (throughICE) cement ofSB1 that Congresshas uit reversedtheissuanceof t inthecountry. submittedtosupport See federal, state,and Pl.Mot.at18- 070 willcause onJune30, compelled See 8

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

See other indiciaoflawfulpresencesoSB1070’s DHS becauseArizona has 287(g) inquiry into aperson’simmigration examples ofcommon forms ofidentification have theability tosearchphon databases thatcontain information aboutape McGlone Decl.¶5(“As a287(g)certifiedoffi implementation ofSB1 irreparable harm asamatter oflaw,but,in on DHS resources” that plaintifffearsis statutory construction, interpretation isnotconsistentwiththeState interpretation ofSB1070.Forthereasons 22 &Ragsdale Decl.¶27. 37 36 plaintiff todemonstrate irreparableharm. SB 1070theyconflict Arizona provides. IfDHS determines that status, conduct unlawful status ofpersonsforwhom reasonablesusp discretion authority). UnderSB1070,Arizona’ See lawsandtocooperatewiththe immigration state andlocalenforcementofficers’ Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRBDocument63Filed07/20/10Page41of48 11751129 Asapracticalmatter,most people stopped, de Ragsdaleexecutedhisdeclarationth , , e.g. e.g. 37

Not onlycanplaintiff’snewly-adoptedpo Second, plaintiff’sallegedharm . Plaintiff’sAllegedHarmIsHy B. Although SB1070isdesigned SB1070doesnot(andcannot)contro , VasquezDecl. ¶20;MarinoDecl.8; , Pl.Mot.at25(acknowledging that st , make inquiries and isunlawfullypresentinthestate. with Congress’intentand,theref nor common sense. 070 willactuallyburden 36 only

Totheextentthesenewpoliciesandprioritiesconflictwith etic spellings andautomatica inconnectionwithaninves officerswithaccessto ICE’scomputerdatabases. status does not necessarily require existing s lawenforcementofficerswill, to increaseinquiresinto e following day–July1,2010. iswhollyspeculative. notwellfoundedbecauseitisbasedon - 36 anyevent, plaintiff cannotdemonstrate that the personisunlawfullypresentbutlow set forthinSectionIII.B,however,plaintiff’s icion exists thatthepersonhasengagedin federal governmentintheirenforcement. authoritytoinvestigateviolationsoffederal of Arizona’sinterpretation,theprinciples rson’s immigration status.Thesedatabases establishing lawfulpresence). Also,an provisions willgenerallynotbetriggered. pothetical andNotWellFounded l whatDHSdoeswiththeinformation cer, Ihavedirectaccess toICEmaintained ate andlocalpoliceofficershavesuch tained, or arrestedhaveidentificationor Adams Decl.Tab5(ICEbrochurewith licies notsupportplaintiff’sclaimof plaintiff’s resources. ore, cannotprovideabasisfor See tigation intotheimmigration lly provide likely spellings.”) A.R.S. §11-1051(B). individuals’immigration SB 1070primarilycodifies within their First,the“burden any actionfrom its

See

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Cir. 1928)(“[I]twouldbeun undoubtedly requires to enfor undoubtedly requiresto incentivize Arizona’slawenfo active participationoflocallawenforcemen and statingthat“federalimmigrationauthor providing state andlocal law enforcementoffi Vaughan Decl.¶¶44-48 (describingth have beenarrested orareunder investigati to lawenforcementofficers ontheimmigrati benefit, not harm, theUnitedStates. See priority, DHScansimplyinst 39 38 of high-priorityillegal Not Recommended” signsinAr 1051(D), transporttheperson person untilDHShasanopportun security orarisktopublicsafety,”Ariz determines thatthepersonis in whichalocalofficertu person. any crimes, SB1070provides anopportunityfor than waitforthesepersonstocommit(andbe Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRBDocument63Filed07/20/10Page42of48 11751129 ICEestablishedtheLaw En Thewarningsigns,intheirentirety,read: • • • • • Smith Decl.andattachedExs. offense.

The factthatthefederalgovernment has Traveling atHighRates ofSpeed BLM EncouragesVisitorstoUsePu If YouSeeSuspicious Ac Stay AwayFromTrash,Clothing,Ba Visitors MayEncounter ArmedCr Area andHumanSmuggling Drug Active See , e.g. See , VasquezDecl.¶¶23-25;MarinoDecl , e.g. , Vaughan Decl. ¶¶41-43(discu aliens inArizona. rns suspectsovertofedera TRAVEL NOTRE DANGER –PUBLICWARNING

reasonable tosupposethat[thefederalgovernment’s] top prioritybecauseheorsh ruct Arizona’slawenforcemen ce thefederalimmigrationlaws. forcement SupportCenter (“ directly tofederallawen rcement officerstoprov izona demonstrates thefederalgovernment’s awareness tivity, DoNotConfront ity toapprehendthepersono See Marshv.UnitedStates e LESCanditsability to respond). ona’s lawenforcementofficerscandetainthe - 37 See on forcriminalactivity.” AdamsDecl.Tab6; ities cannotproperlydotheirjobswithout the t”). Thus,SB 1070does nothing more than on statusandidentities ofindividualswho iminals andSmugglingVehicles DHS to apprehend them inconnection with SmithDecl.andattachedexhibits. apprehendedfor)add blic LandsNorthofInterstate8 cers with“timelyandaccurate information COMMENDED ckpacks, andAbandonedVehicles posted “Danger –Public WarningTravel l agents).If,however,DHS ssing ICE’srelianceonreferrals ide assistancethatDHS forcement authorities. . ¶¶24-25(describingtheprocess e “pose[s]adangertonational LESC”) forthepurpose of ! Move Away and Call 911 t officerstoreleasethe 39 r, pursuanttoA.R.S.§11- Such assistance servesto Suchassistance , 29F.2d172,174(2d itional “highpriority” 38 Rather

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

enacted byarguingthatSB1070 areas of mutual concern.EmmermannDecl. ¶¶3,15. areas ofmutual do withanyprovisionintheAct.Arizona hasreceivedfollowingSB10 criticism Arizona policy.” Pl.Mot.at47.Thisargumentfa as Ecuador,Bolivia,El Salvad de 2009(Mex.).Moreover, tothe extentpl (General PopulationAct), asamended,art. status beforeperforming particularacts orcontracts. authorities torequestthatforeignerspres Ley General dePoblacion, whic impairs internationalrelationsmustbeweig the veryleast,beenasubstantialfactorinco For example,before 21.And,variou bill.” AdamsDecl.Tab relates toracialprofilingeven thoughhela read theAct.AdamsDecl.Tab20.EricHo that SB1070was“badlawen for activedutyservice the Actbystating purpose wastodenyitselfanyhelp 40 reasons.”). in theworld.Thesecoun Decl. ¶46(“Thesecountries areamong the mo Americans.” Arizona” as“threaten[ing]tounderminebasi “open[ing] thedoor to irres Tab 22.PresidentObamafurt instructed theDOJto Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRBDocument63Filed07/20/10Page43of48 11751129 ThefactthattheMexicangovernment opposes

Plaintiff alsoseekstoestablishthatitw . Any Impact toForeign PolicyBase C. Id. Entirely UponMisconceptionsAbouttheAct DHSSecretaryJanetNapolitanoalso – duringanaturalization ceremony inthe White HouseRose Garden Governor Brewereven evaluate whether thelawwould violate civilrights.Adams Decl. members from 24 countries countries 24 from members tries routinelycriticize U.S.policyforpurelypolitical ponsibility byothers,” andreferre

forcement law,”afterwhichsh her statedthatafederalso or, andGuatemala,such re h includesaprovisionthatpermits federalandlocal willinterferewith that thestatesmayallow.”). ent documentsconfirmi s StateDepartmentofficialshavemade - 38 ils toestablishirreparableharm becausethe and Mexico continue towork together on ter acknowledged having only “glanced atthe 67 DiaroOficialdlaFe aintiff reliesoncriticism fromcountriessuch signedSB1070,Pres hed againstMexico’sownReglamento dela loring foreignofficials’ lder expressedaconcernaboutthebillasit c notionsof fairnessthatwecherishas ill suffer irreparable harm if SB 1070is ill sufferirreparableharmifSB st virulentlyanti-American governments 70’s passagehashadlittle(ifanything)to SB1070orthatotherssuggest d onSB1070’s – plaintiff’s “abilitytomanageforeign

that itwas“misguided” and See 40 And, federal officials have, at And,federalofficialshave, appeared ontelevisiontoassert lution wasnecessarytoavoid LeyGeneral dePoblacion liance isunfounded.Reich e admitted thatshehadnot e admitted d to“therecenteffortsin

ng theirimmigration ident Obamacriticized deracion, 14deAbril Enactment IsBased negativeperceptions.

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

criticism and fear asitrelatesto criticism and educate thepublic–domestic orinterna disparaging commentsab 42 41 impact ofSB1070arises outanyactualprovisionofthe Act. misrepresentations, itisimpossibletodetermin of injunction.’” pay particularregardforthepublicconseque I. THEBALANCEOFEQUITIES VII. Bolton Decl. ¶ 8;Adams Decl. Tab35,at14-15. extensive trainingrelated to criticisms arenotwell founded becauseAriz immigration laws,PresidentObama,Secretar immigration criticizing SB1070). 19 (reporting the public statements Assistan Arizonaand10 official commentscomparing Arizona SenatorJohnMcCain response from theinternationalcommunity”); lawsuit andthattheStateDepartment“s Secretary ofStateHillaryClinton“announced

of therequestedinjunctivere consideration of[theirreparabl 456 U.S.305,31 Secretary Clintonhaveallowed established alikelihoodof America andthegeneral publicdid notreadit.”). Security didnotreadthelawbeforecriticizingit, world. ReichDecl.¶24(“IftheU.S.Atto Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRBDocument63Filed07/20/10Page44of48 11751129 MostofSB1070’scritics in See also

In determiningwhethertoi Instead ofeducatingtheinternational Reich Decl.¶28(itappearsthatdiplom Winter 2 (1982)).In , 129S.Ct. at376-77 (quoting out SB1070.ReichDecl.¶26 successonthemerits.”

racial profiling.Vasquez Decl.¶5;Gafvert7; lief” withoutregardforwhet sist thattheActwilllead to Winter and JonKyl demanding retractionofstatedepartment e injuryandpublicinterest]fa SB 1070tobedistorted in the enforcementof litigation”). ssue apreliminaryin , theSupreme Courtheldthat“aproper tional –aboutSB1070, exceptto“incite hould haveexpected asignificantnegative - 39 rney GeneralandtheSecretaryofHomeland TIPS SHARPLYINARIZONA’S FAVOR t SecretaryofStateMichaelPosnermade ona’s lawenforcement officersreceive community aboutexis nces inemployingthe extraordinary remedy y Napolitano,Attorney 70 toCommunist China);AdamsDecl.Tab totheworld”thatDOJwasfilinga Adams Decl.Tabs37&18(Letter from e towhatextent,ifany,theforeignpolicy 41 itisfairtoassume Basedonallthesestatements and atic effortshavenotbeenmade to Id . at376; Weinberger v.Romero-Barcelo junction, “‘courts ofequityshould (former ambassadornotingthat her “plaintiffshavealso racialprofiling,butsuch Latin Americaandaroundthe 42 ctors alonerequire[d] denial see also

ting UnitedStates the reportersinLatin General Holder,and

Yakus v.United ,

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

needs tobeserved conclusive. Insuchcases,thelegislature,not legislature hasspoken, the threat tothestate’swelfar restrained asameasureofpublicsafety.”). Yakus preserved betweenfederalequitablepoweran toenjo “When aplaintiffseeks federal courtsmust beconstan (citation omitted).“Where,ashere,theexercise the widestlatitudein‘dispatch contend withthewell-establishedrulethat harm totheplaintiffs). traffic andsafetyhazardsthatresultfrom finding that“theharmtoth 637 F.2d 430,443(5th Cir. equity hasneverbeen regarded may otherwiseresulttotheplaintiff.”); States 43 harm tothelanddueillegalimmigr this country.AdamsDecl.Tab26at4; there wereapproximately 500,000 peoplein There canbenodisputethat effect. Arizona,bycontrast,issufferingse at 378(quoting Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRBDocument63Filed07/20/10Page45of48 11751129

See alsoHawaii Housing Auth. v.Midkiff , 321U.S.at443(“Eventhepersonallib , 321U.S.414,440(1944)(“Theawardof

Plaintiffs bearanespecially Arizona has repeatedly asked for federala Plaintiff willnotsufferanyharm(letalone Stefanelli v.Minard bysociallegislation. . .”)(citationomitted). e, themoredrasticremedy which may be applied.” public interesthasbeen declaredintermswell-nigh e defendantsandthegeneral pu

1981) (affirming thedenialofaninjunction basedonits Arizona has a serious illegal immigration problem.In2009, Arizona hasaseriousillegalimmigration tly mindful ofthe‘specialdelic in theactivityofagovernment as strictlyamatterofright,ev heavyburdenwhen of itsowninternalaffairs.’” , 342U.S.117,120(1951)).“Themoreseriousthe ation); AdamsDecl.Tab32(same). Piedmont HeightsCivicClub,Inc.v.Moreland see also - 40 . overcrowded highways” outweighed the 43 the Government hastraditionallybeengranted rious consequencesunderthestatusquo. , 467U.S.229, 239(1984) (“[W]hen the

Arizona whowerenotlawfullypresentin thejudiciary,ismain guardianofthe d Stateadministration ofitsownlaw.’” erty ofthecitizenmaybetemporarily ofauthoritybystate Adams Decl. Tab30(discussing severe ssistance indealing ssistance an interlocutory inj irreparableharm)if theyseektoen blic” asaresultof“serious agency.hiscasemust en thoughirreparableinjury acy oftheadjustment tobe Rizzo unction bycourtsof with theinfluxof , 423U.S. at378-79 officials isattacked, SB1070goesinto join theState. Id. ; Id. ,

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

27 at1. murders ofmore than22,700 peoplesouth caused bytheMexicandrugcartels,whichGo address the“rampant trafficking ofdrugs, addressing Arizona’sborder-contr secure Arizona’sborder couldnotbeclea Governor BrewerwrotetoPresidentObamaa Napolitano, DHSSecretary(Jan.4,2010)(A (June 3,2010)(Adams Decl.Ta from JohnM.Roll,Chief Judge,ArizonaDist Arizona, toM.Chertoff,DHSSecretary(Ma Secretary (Mar.7,2006)(AdamsDecl.Tab11 Napolitano, GovernorofArizona,toD.Ru D. Rumsfeld,DoDSecretary(Dec.30,2005) illegal aliens inArizona. illegal aliens 44 Among thedocumented harms demonstr would inflict significantandtangible, irrepa supposed interestinhaving as July2010,ArizonaAttorn Adams Decl. Tab15; have substantiallyaffected thequalityoflife These arenotspeculative, hypo Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRBDocument63Filed07/20/10Page46of48 11751129 Arizona’ssenatorshave alsosoughthelp

Arizona’s interestinhavingSB1070en (i) (iii) (ii)

unsafe anddangerous. and criminalactivity; exposed toinjuryand death; Citizens aredeniedtheuseofpubliclandsdeemed Individuals aresubjectedto Citizens, includingpoliceoffi see also 44

See, e.g.,

SB 1070enjoin ey GeneralTerryGoddardwr Adams 16. Decl.Tab thetical harms.These are b 9);LetterfromDeanMartin, ol issues.AdamsDecl.Tab13 LetterfromJ.Napolitano,GovernorofArizona,to ated bytheStatehereinare: - 41 rer” and proposed af humans, guns andmoney acrossourborder” of ourborder since2007.” Adams Decl.Tab msfeld, DoDSecretary inaddressingArizona’s borderproblems. ed. Enjoiningtheenfo rable harm upontheState anditscitizens. r. 11,2008)(AdamsDecl.Tab12);Letter dams Decl.Tab14).OnJune23,2010, in Arizonaandwillcontin (AdamsDecl.Tab10);LetterfromJ. nd explained that“theneedfor actionto rict Court,toCongressional StaffMembers ddard believestobe“responsible forthe the presenceofdrugcartels ); LetterfromJ.Napolitano,Governorof forced substantiallyexceedsplaintiff’s cers andtheirfamilies,are real-life experienceswhich ote toPresidentObama our-point strategyfor Treasurer ofArizona,toJ. at1.And,asrecently rcement of SB 1070 1070 SB of rcement and M.Chertoff,DHS ue todosoatan

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

and IX. CONCLUSION increasing rateifSB1070isenjoined.

request thattheCourtdenypl Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRBDocument63Filed07/20/10Page47of48 11751129

DATED this 20 For theforegoing reasons,GovernorBrewer th

dayofJuly,2010. aintiff’s requestedinjunction. y s/JosephA. Kanefield By y /Jh .Bua By: s/JohnJ.Bouma SNELL &WILMER Phoenix, AZ 85004-2202 400 E.VanBuren One Arizona Center Joseph G.Adams Robert A.Henry Brewer, GovernoroftheStateArizona Attorneys fortheStateof John J.Bouma Phoenix, AZ 85007 1700 W.Washington, 9th Floor Office ofGovernor JaniceK.Brewer Joseph A.Kanefield - 42 andtheStateofArizonarespectfully L.L.P. L.L.P. with permission ArizonaandJaniceK.

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. LAW OFFICES One Arizona Center, 400 E. Van Buren

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 (602) 382-6000

28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

s/John J. Bouma Notice ofElectronicFilingtothe document totheClerk’sOfficeusingCM Case 2:10-cv-01413-SRBDocument63Filed07/20/10Page48of 11751129

I herebycertify thatonJuly20,2010I Washington, D.C.20530 20 MassachusettsAvenue, N.W. U.S. Department ofJustice,CivilDivision Joshua Wilkenfeld Varu Chilakamarri Arthur R.Goldberg Dennis K.Burke Tony West CERTIFICATE OFSERVICE following CM/ECFregistrants: - 43 /ECF Systemforfilingandtransmittalofa electronically transm

itted theforegoing