PHOENIX — The impassioned debate over the nation’s immigration policy takes center stage at the Supreme Court on Wednesday in a dispute over an Arizona law that punishes employers who knowingly hire workers illegally in the United States.
Arizona’s employer sanctions law has been used just three times in three years, but business interests and civil-rights groups, backed by the Obama administration, have banded together to argue that only the federal government may enforce immigration laws.
The outcome in this case also could signal how the court would handle the controversial and more expansive Arizona immigration enforcement law, known as SB1070, that the administration challenged and a federal judge blocked key components of this summer.
“It could take this less-visible case and do something that impacts substantially on the SB1070 litigation by making some broader observations,” said Peter Spiro, who teaches immigration law at Temple University’s law school.
The employer sanctions law was intended to diminish Arizona’s role as the nation’s hub for immigrant smuggling by requiring employers to verify the eligibility of new workers through a federal database. Employers convicted of violating the law can have their business licenses suspended or revoked.
A survey by The Associated Press of all county prosecutor offices in Arizona found that out of the 101 employer sanctions complaints lodged since the law took effect in January 2008, three have led to civil cases being filed against employers.
But dozens of business raids in metropolitan Phoenix during employer sanctions investigations have led to the arrests of 131 workers who are illegal immigrants on criminal charges, such as using forged documents or stolen identities to get jobs. The law intended to target employers has been used more often against workers.
Supporters said the law was needed because the federal government has done a lousy job of enforcing a similar federal law. They also say the state rules have discouraged countless employers from hiring illegal immigrants.
Business and civil-rights groups challenged the law as a clear and unconstitutional attempt to pre-empt federal authority.
