lowcountry immigration coalition v. south carolina (4th cir. july 23, 2013)

7/27/2019 Lowcountry Immigration Coalition v. South Carolina (4th Cir. July 23, 2013)

1/34


2/34

2

v.

NI KKI HALEY, i n her of f i ci al capaci t y as t he Gover nor ofSout h Car ol i na; ALAN WI LSON, i n hi s of f i ci al capaci t y asAt t or ney Gener al of t he St at e of Sout h Car ol i na,

Def endant s Appel l ant s,

and

J AMES ALTON CANNON, i n hi s of f i ci al capaci t y as t he Sher i f fof Char l est on Count y; SCARLETT A. WI LSON, i n her of f i ci alcapaci t y as Sol i ci t or of t he Ni nt h J udi ci al Ci r cui t ,

Def endants.

No. 12-2514

UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

Pl ai nt i f f Appel l ee,

v.

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLI NA; NI KKI HALEY, i n her of f i ci alcapaci t y as t he Gover nor of Sout h Car ol i na,

Def endant s Appel l ant s.

No. 12-2533

LOWCOUNTRY I MMI GRATI ON COALI TI ON; MUJ ERES DE TRI UNFO; NUEVOS

CAMI NOS; SOUTH CAROLI NA VI CTI M ASSI STANCE NETWORK; SOUTHCAROLI NA HI SPANI C LEADERSHI P COUNCI L; SERVI CE EMPLOYEESI NTERNATI ONAL UNI ON; SOUTHERN REGI ONAL J OI NT BOARD OFWORKERS UNI TED; J ANE DOE, No. 1; J ANE DOE, No. 2; J OHN DOE,No. 1; YAJ AI RA BENET- SMI TH; KELLER BARRON; J OHN MCKENZI E;SANDRA J ONES,

Pl ai nt i f f s Appel l ees,

Appeal: 12-1096 Doc: 121 Filed: 07/23/2013 Pg: 2 of 34


3/34

3

v.

NI KKI HALEY, i n her of f i ci al capaci t y as t he Gover nor ofSout h Car ol i na; ALAN WI LSON, i n hi s of f i ci al capaci t y asAt t or ney Gener al of t he St at e of Sout h Car ol i na,

Def endant s Appel l ant s,

and

J AMES ALTON CANNON, i n hi s of f i ci al capaci t y as t he Sher i f fof Char l est on Count y; SCARLETT A. WI LSON, i n her of f i ci alcapaci t y as Sol i ci t or of t he Ni nt h J udi ci al Ci r cui t ,

Def endants.

Appeal s f r om t he Uni t ed St at es Di st r i ct Cour t f or t he Di st r i ctof Sout h Car ol i na, at Char l est on. Ri char d Mar k Ger gel , Di st r i ctJ udge. ( 2: 11- cv- 02958- RMG, 2: 11- cv- 02779- RMG, 2: 11- cv- 02958-RMG, 2: 11- cv- 02779- RMG)

Ar gued: May 14, 2013 Deci ded: J ul y 23, 2013

Bef ore DUNCAN, AGEE, and DAVI S, Ci r cui t J udges.

Af f i r med by publ i shed opi ni on. J udge Davi s wr ot e t he opi ni on,i n whi ch J udge Duncan and J udge Agee j oi ned.

ARGUED: J ames Emor y Smi t h, J r . , OFFI CE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERALOF SOUTH CAROLI NA, Col umbi a, Sout h Carol i na, f or Appel l ant s.Dani el Tenny, UNI TED STATES DEPARTMENT OF J USTI CE, Washi ngt on,D. C. ; Karen C. Tuml i n, NATI ONAL I MMI GRATI ON LAW CENTER, Los

Angel es, Cal i f or ni a, f or Appel l ees. ON BRIEF: Al an Wi l son,At t orney Gener al , Rober t D. Cook, Deput y At t orney Gener al ,OFFI CE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLI NA, Col umbi a,Sout h Car ol i na, f or Appel l ant s. Wi l l i am N. Net t l es, Uni t edSt at es At t or ney, Col umbi a, Sout h Car ol i na, St uar t F. Del er y,Pr i nci pal Deput y Assi st ant At t or ney Gener al , Bet h S. Br i nkmann,Deput y Assi st ant At t orney Gener al , Mark B. St er n, Benj ami n M.Schul t z, J ef f r ey E. Sandber g, UNI TED STATES DEPARTMENT OF



4/34

4

J USTI CE, Washi ngt on, D. C. , f or Federal Appel l ee. Li nt onJ oaqui n, Nor a A. Pr eci ado, Mel i ssa S. Keaney, Al var o M. Huert a,NATI ONAL I MMI GRATI ON LAW CENTER, Los Angel es, Cal i f orni a; Andr eSegur a, Omar J adwat , Lee Gel ernt , AMERI CAN CI VI L LI BERTI ES UNI ONFOUNDATI ON, New Yor k, New Yor k; Ceci l l i a D. Wang, Kat her i neDesormeau, San Franci sco, Cal i f or ni a, J ust i n B. Cox, AMERI CANCI VI L LI BERTI ES UNI ON FOUNDATI ON I MMI GRANTS' RI GHTS PROJ ECT,At l ant a, Geor gi a; Susan K. Dunn, AMERI CAN CI VI L LI BERTI ES UNI ONOF SOUTH CAROLI NA, Char l est on, Sout h Carol i na; Vi ct orVi r amont es, MEXI CAN AMERI CAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATI ONAL FUND,Los Angel es, Cal i f or ni a; Mi chel l e R. Lapoi nt e, Naomi Tsu,At l ant a, Georgi a, Samuel Br ooke, SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER,Mont gomer y, Al abama; Al i ce Payl or , ROSEN, ROSEN & HAGOOD,Char l est on, Sout h Carol i na; Fost er Maer , LATI NO J USTI CE PRLDEF,New Yor k, New Yor k f or Appel l ees Lowcount r y I mmi grat i onCoal i t i on, Muj er es De Tr i unf o, Nuevos Cami nos, Sout h Car ol i naVi ct i m Assi st ance Net wor k, Sout h Car ol i na Hi spani c Leader shi p

Counci l , Ser vi ce Empl oyees I nt er nat i onal Uni on, Sout her nRegi onal J oi nt Boar d of Worker s Uni t ed, J ane Doe, No. 1, J aneDoe, No. 2, J ohn Doe, No. 1, Yaj ai r a Benet - Smi t h, Kel l er Bar r on,J ohn Mckenzi e, Sandra J ones. St ephen Ni ckel sbur g, Car l aGor ni ak, Al exander M. Fel dman, CLI FFORD CHANCE US LLP,Washi ngton, D. C. ; Henry L. Sol ano, WI LSON ELSER MOSKOWI TZEDELMAN & DI CKER LLP, Denver , Col or ado, f or The Uni t ed Mexi canSt at es, Ami cus Cur i ae.



5/34

5

DAVI S, Ci r cui t J udge:

I n 2011, t he Sout h Car ol i na l egi sl at ur e passed, and t he

governor si gned, a package of i mmi gr at i on l aws known as Act 69

( t he Act ) . I n t hi s pr e- enf or cement chal l enge, t he di st r i ct

cour t pr el i mi nar i l y enj oi ned Sect i ons 4, 5, and 6( B) ( 2) of t he

Act on f eder al pr eempt i on gr ounds. These sect i ons made i t a

st at e cr i mi nal of f ense f or ( 1) a per son unl awf ul l y pr esent i n

t he Uni t ed St at es t o conceal , har bor , or shel t er her sel f f r om

det ect i on, or al l ow her sel f t o be t r anspor t ed wi t hi n t he st at e;

( 2) a t hi r d par t y t o par t i ci pat e i n conceal i ng, shel t er i ng, or

t r anspor t i ng a per son unl awf ul l y pr esent i n t he Uni t ed St at es;

( 3) an al i en 18 year s or ol der t o f ai l t o car r y an al i en

r egi st r at i on car d; and ( 4) an i ndi vi dual t o di spl ay or possess a

f al se i dent i f i cat i on car d f or t he pur pose of pr ovi ng l awf ul

pr esence. Sout h Car ol i na ( t he St at e) br i ngs t hi s i nt er l ocut or y

appeal . For t he r easons t hat f ol l ow, we af f i r m.

I .

A.

The Sout h Car ol i na Gener al Assembl y passed t he Act , a

compr ehensi ve package of l aws and r egul at i ons r egardi ng

i mmi gr at i on, i n r esponse t o a per cei ved f ai l ur e of t he Uni t ed

St at es t o secur e i t s sout her n bor der and pr ot ect i t s nat i onal

secur i t y. See Uni t ed St at es v. Sout h Car ol i na, 840 F. Supp. 2d

898, 904 ( D. S. C. 2011) ( Sout h Car ol i na I ) , r emanded f or



6/34


7/34

7

subsect i ons i s puni shabl e by a f i ne not t o exceed $5, 000, up t o

f i ve year s i n pr i son, or bot h.

Subsect i ons 4( B) and ( D) make i t a st at e f el ony, al so

puni shabl e by a f i ne not t o exceed $5, 000, up t o f i ve year s i n

pr i son, or bot h, t o t r anspor t , move or at t empt t o t r anspor t or

conceal , har bor or shel t er a per son wi t h i nt ent t o f ur t her

t hat per son s unl awf ul ent r y i nt o t he Uni t ed St at es or t o hel p

t hat per son avoi d appr ehensi on or det ect i on. 2

2 Sect i ons 4( B) and ( D) pr ovi de, i n f ul l :

( B) I t i s a f el ony f or a per son knowi ngl y or i nr eckl ess di sr egar d of t he f act t hat anot her per son hascome t o, ent er ed, or r emai ned i n t he Uni t ed St at es i nvi ol at i on of l aw t o t r anspor t , move, or at t empt t ot r anspor t t hat per son wi t hi n t he St at e or t o sol i ci tor conspi r e t o t r anspor t or move t hat per son wi t hi nt he St at e wi t h i nt ent t o f ur t her t hat per son sunl awf ul ent r y i nt o t he Uni t ed St at es or avoi di ng

appr ehensi on or det ect i on of t hat per son s unl awf uli mmi gr at i on st at us by st at e or f eder al aut hor i t i es.

. . .

( D) I t i s a f el ony f or a per son knowi ngl y or i nr eckl ess di sr egar d of t he f act t hat anot her per son hascome t o, ent er ed, or r emai ned i n t he Uni t ed St at es i nvi ol at i on of l aw t o conceal , har bor , or shel t er f r omdet ect i on or t o sol i ci t or conspi r e t o conceal ,har bor , or shel t er f r om det ect i on t hat per son i n any

pl ace, i ncl udi ng a bui l di ng or means oft r anspor t at i on, wi t h i nt ent t o f ur t her t hat per son sunl awf ul ent r y i nt o t he Uni t ed St at es or avoi di ngappr ehensi on or det ect i on of t hat per son s unl awf uli mmi gr at i on st at us by st at e or f eder al aut hor i t i es.

Act 69, 2011 S. C. Act s ( S. B. 20) ; J . A. 106- 07.



8/34

8

Sect i on 5 makes i t a st at e mi sdemeanor f or any person 18

year s or ol der t o f ai l t o car r y a cer t i f i cat e of al i en

r egi str at i on or al i en r egi str at i on r ecei pt car d. 3 A vi ol at i on of

Sect i on 5 i s puni shabl e by a f i ne of not more t han $100, up t o

30 days i mpr i sonment , or bot h.

Subsect i on 6( B) ( 2) makes i t unl awf ul f or any per son t o

di spl ay or possess a count er f ei t or f al se I D f or t he pur pose of

pr ovi di ng pr oof of l awf ul pr esences i n t he Uni t ed St at es. 4

Convi cti on f or a f i r st vi ol at i on of subsecti on 6( B) ( 2) i s a

mi sdemeanor puni shabl e by a f i ne of not mor e than $100 or

i mpr i sonment of not more t han 30 days. Convi ct i on f or a second

3 Sect i on 5 pr ovi des, i n r el evant par t :

( A) I t i s unl awf ul f or a per son ei ght een year s of age

or ol der t o f ai l t o car r y i n t he per son s possessi onany cer t i f i cat e of al i en r egi st r at i on or al i enr egi st r at i on r ecei pt car d i ssued t o t he per sonpur suant t o 8 U. S. C. Sect i on 1304 whi l e the per son i si n t hi s St at e.

Act 69, 2011 S. C. Act s ( S. B. 20) ; J . A. 108.

4 Sect i on 6( B) ( 2) pr ovi des:

I t i s unl awf ul f or a per son t o di spl ay, cause or

per mi t t o be di spl ayed, or have i n t he per son spossessi on a f al se, f i ct i t i ous, f r audul ent , orcount er f ei t pi ct ur e i dent i f i cat i on f or t he pur pose ofof f er i ng pr oof of t he per son s l awf ul pr esence i n t heUni t ed St at es.

Act 69, 2011 S. C. Act s ( S. B. 20) ; J . A. 108- 09.



9/34

9

of f ense under t he sect i on i s a f el ony puni shabl e by a f i ne of

not mor e than $500 or i mpr i sonment of not more than f i ve year s.

B.

I n t wo separ at e act i ons f i l ed i n t he Uni t ed St at es Di st r i ct

Cour t f or t he Di st r i ct of Sout h Car ol i na, t he Lowcount r y

I mmi gr at i on Coal i t i on ( Lowcount r y Pl ai nt i f f s) and t he Uni t ed

St at es chal l enged var i ous sect i ons of t he Act , l ar gel y on

pr eempt i on gr ounds. Lowcount r y Pl ai nt i f f s i s a gr oup of

i ndi vi dual s and or gani zat i ons, i ncl udi ng t he Nat i onal

I mmi gr at i on Law Cent er , t he Sout hern Pover t y Law Cent er , and the

Amer i can Ci vi l Li ber t i es Uni on of Sout h Car ol i na.

The di st r i ct cour t , af t er consol i dat i ng t he cases, f ound

Sect i ons 4, 5, and 6( B) ( 2) ( as wel l as ot her subsect i ons of

Sect i on 6 not r el evant here) were pr eempt ed by f ederal l aw and

i ssued a pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on as t o t hose sect i ons. Sout h

Carol i na I , 840 F. Supp. 2d 898. Bef ore we coul d hear t he

St at e s appeal f r om t hat or der , t he Supr eme Cour t deci ded

Ar i zona v. Uni t ed St at es, 132 S. Ct . 2492 ( 2012) , st r i ki ng down

sever al pr ovi si ons of an Ar i zona l aw t hat , i nt er al i a, made i t a

st at e cri me f or an al i en t o f ai l t o car r y an al i en r egi st r at i on

document and f or an unaut hor i zed al i en t o appl y f or , sol i ci t , or

per f or m wor k. We r emanded t he i nst ant case to t he di st r i ct cour t

f or r econsi der at i on i n l i ght of Ar i zona. On r emand, t he di st r i ct



10/34

10

cour t l et st and i t s i nj unct i on of Sect i ons 4, 5, and 6( B) ( 2) . 5

Uni t ed St ates v. Sout h Carol i na, 906 F. Supp. 2d 463, 466- 69,

473- 74 ( D. S. C. 2012) ( Sout h Car ol i na I I ) .

Sout h Car ol i na appeal ed t o t hi s Cour t . We have j ur i sdi ct i on

pur suant t o 28 U. S. C. 1292( a) ( 1) .

I I .

We r evi ew t he deci si on t o gr ant a pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on

f or abuse of di scr et i on. Fact ual det er mi nat i ons ar e r evi ewed f or

cl ear er r or and l egal concl usi ons de novo. E. Tenn. Nat ur al Gas

Co. v. Sage, 361 F. 3d 808, 828 ( 4t h Ci r . 2004) . Fai t hf ul t o t he

abuse- of - di scret i on st andar d, we ar e obl i ged t o af f i r m [ a gr ant

of a pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on when] t he di st r i ct cour t appl i ed a

cor r ect pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on st andar d, made no cl ear l y

er r oneous f i ndi ngs of mat er i al f act , and demonst r at ed a f i r m

gr asp of t he l egal pr i nci pl es per t i nent t o t he under l yi ng

di sput e. Gr eat er Bal t . Ct r . f or Pr egnancy Concer ns, I nc. v.

Mayor and Ci t y Counci l of Bal t . , - - - F. 3d - - - , No. 11- 1111, sl i p

op. at 57 ( 4t h Ci r . J ul y 3, 2013) ( en banc) ( ci t at i on and

i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

5 The di st r i ct cour t had i ni t i al l y enj oi ned ot hersubsect i ons of Sect i on 6, but di ssol ved t he i nj unct i on as t ot hose other sect i ons on r emand. See Uni t ed St ates v. Sout hCarol i na, 906 F. Supp. 2d 463, 470- 73 ( D. S. C. 2012) .



11/34

11

The pur pose of a pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on i s mer el y to

pr eser ve t he r el at i ve posi t i ons of t he par t i es unt i l a t r i al on

t he mer i t s can be hel d. Uni v. of Tex. v. Cameni sch, 451 U. S.

390, 395 ( 1981) . The t r adi t i onal of f i ce of a pr el i mi nar y

i nj unct i on i s t o pr ot ect t he st at us quo and t o pr event

i r r epar abl e har m dur i ng t he pendency of a l awsui t ul t i mat el y t o

pr eserve t he cour t s abi l i t y to r ender a meani ngf ul j udgment on

t he mer i t s. I n r e Mi crosof t Cor p. Ant i t r ust Li t i g. , 333 F. 3d

517, 525 ( 4t h Ci r . 2003) .

I I I .

Bef or e r eachi ng t he mer i t s of t hi s case, we must r esol ve

sever al t hr eshol d i ssues. Sout h Car ol i na ar gues t hat Lowcount r y

Pl ai nt i f f s do not have a r i ght of act i on t o seek an i nj unct i on

and t hat , under Younger abst ent i on, t he di st r i ct cour t shoul d

have decl i ned to hear t he case. Both ar gument s l ack mer i t .

A.

Sout h Car ol i na f i r st pr esses i t s argument t hat Lowcount r y

Pl ai nt i f f s do not have a r i ght of act i on under t he Supr emacy

Cl ause or 42 U. S. C. 1983 t o br i ng t hei r cl ai m. ( The St at e does

not ar gue t hat t he Uni t ed St at es l acks a r i ght of act i on. ) The

St at e ar gues t hat because t he Supr emacy Cl ause i s not a sour ce

of subst ant i ve f eder al r i ght s, i t cannot be t he basi s f or a

pr i vat e r i ght of act i on her e. The St at e l eans heavi l y on Chi ef

J ust i ce Rober t s s di ssent i n Dougl as v. I ndependent Li vi ng



12/34

12

Cent er of Sout her n Cal i f or ni a, I nc. , 132 S. Ct . 1204 ( 2012) ,

ar gui ng i t st ands f or t he pr oposi t i on t hat t he Supr emacy Cl ause

does not creat e a pr i vat e r i ght of act i on.

Dougl as concer ned t hr ee Cal i f or ni a st at ut es t hat r educed

payment s t o Medi cai d r eci pi ent s. I d. at 1208. The st at e

submi t t ed t he changes t o a f ederal agency charged wi t h r evi ewi ng

any changes t o how Medi cai d payment s ar e cal cul at ed. I d. But

bef ore t he agency coul d compl et e i t s r evi ew, gr oups of Medi cai d

pr ovi der s and benef i ci ar i es f i l ed a ser i es of l awsui t s seeki ng

t o enj oi n t he r educt i ons on t he gr ound t hat t hey were pr eempt ed

by f eder al Medi cai d l aw. I d. The Ni nt h Ci r cui t ul t i mat el y

af f i r med or or der ed pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i ons t hat pr event ed t he

St at e f r om i mpl ement i ng i t s st at ut es and hel d t hat t he

Medi cai d pr ovi der s and benef i ci ar i es coul d di r ect l y br i ng an

act i on based on t he Supr emacy Cl ause. I d. at 1209.

The Supreme Cour t grant ed cer t i or ar i t o deci de whet her

Medi cai d pr ovi der s and r eci pi ent s may mai nt ai n a cause of act i on

under t he Supr emacy Cl ause t o enf orce a f eder al Medi cai d l aw.

132 S. Ct . at 1207. But about a mont h af t er oral argument i n the

Supr eme Cour t , t he f ederal agency charged wi t h r evi ewi ng t he

payment change approved t he reduct i ons. Dougl as, 132 S. Ct . at

1209. That r ai sed t he quest i on of whet her t he pl ai nt i f f s shoul d

seek r evi ew of t he agency det er mi nat i on under t he Admi ni st r at i ve

Procedur e Act , r ather t han i n a Supr emacy Cl ause chal l enge, and



13/34

13

so t he Cour t r emanded f or t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t t o answer t hat

quest i on. I d. at 1201- 11. ( The Ni nt h Ci r cui t has not yet

answered the quest i on. ) Gi ven t he r emand based on changed

ci r cumst ances, t he Cour t expl i ci t l y st at ed t hat we do not

addr ess whet her t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t pr oper l y recogni zed a

Supr emacy Cl ause act i on t o enf or ce t hi s f eder al st at ut e bef or e

t he agency t ook f i nal act i on. I d. at 1211.

Chi ef J ust i ce Rober t s, j oi ned by J ust i ces Scal i a, Thomas,

and Al i t o, di ssent ed i n Dougl as. He st at ed t hat he bel i eved

t her e i s no pr i vat e r i ght of act i on under t he Supr emacy Cl ause

t o enf or ce 42 U. S. C. 1396a( a) ( 30) ( A) , t he r el evant pr ovi si ons

of t he Medi cai d Act , whi ch r equi r es a st at e s Medi cai d pl an and

amendment s t o meet cer t ai n st andards of ef f i ci ency, economy, and

qual i t y of car e. Not i ng t hat t he Supr emacy Cl ause i s not a

sour ce of any f eder al r i ght s, t he Chi ef J ust i ce st at ed:

I ndeed, t o say t hat t her e i s a f eder al st at ut or y r i ghtenf orceabl e under t he Supr emacy Cl ause, when t here i sno such r i ght under t he per t i nent st at ut e i t sel f ,woul d ef f ect a compl et e end- r un around t hi s Cour t ' si mpl i ed r i ght of act i on and 42 U. S. C. 1983j ur i sprudence.

Dougl as, 132 S. Ct . at 1213 ( Rober t s, C. J . , di ssent i ng) .

The Chi ef J ust i ce di st i ngui shed t he si t uat i on i n Dougl as

f r om Ex part e Young, 209 U. S. 123 ( 1908) , and i t s progeny, whi ch

pr esent qui t e di f f er ent quest i ons i nvol vi ng the pr e- empt i ve

assert i on i n equi t y of a def ense that woul d other wi se have been



14/34

14

avai l abl e i n t he St at e s enf or cement pr oceedi ngs at l aw.

Dougl as, 132 S. Ct . at 1213 ( Rober t s, C. J . , di ssent i ng)

( ci t at i on and i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . He cont i nued,

Not hi ng of t hat sor t i s at i ssue her e; t he r espondent s are not

subj ect t o or t hr eat ened wi t h any enf or cement pr oceedi ng l i ke

t he one i n Ex par t e Young. They si mpl y seek a pr i vat e cause of

act i on Congr ess chose not t o pr ovi de. I d.

We f i nd no mer i t i n t he St at e s cont ent i on. Not hi ng i n t he

Chi ef J ust i ce s di ssent di st ur bed t he pr i or hol di ngs of t he

Supr eme Cour t or ci r cui t cour t s t hat have al l owed pr i vat e

par t i es t o seek i nj unct i ve r el i ef f r om stat e stat ut es al l egedl y

pr eempt ed by f eder al l aw. A l ong l i ne of cases conf i r ms t hi s

r i ght of act i on. See Shaw v. Del t a Ai r Li nes, I nc. , 463 U. S. 85,

96 n. 14 ( 1983) ( A pl ai nt i f f who seeks i nj unct i ve r el i ef f r om

st at e r egul at i on, on t he gr ound t hat such r egul at i on i s pr e-

empt ed by a f eder al st atut e whi ch, by vi r t ue of t he Supr emacy

Cl ause of t he Const i t ut i on, must pr evai l , t hus pr esent s a

f eder al quest i on whi ch t he f eder al cour t s have j ur i sdi ct i on

under 28 U. S. C. 1331 t o r esol ve. ) ; Local Uni on No. 12004,

Uni t ed St eel worker s of Am. v. Massachuset t s, 377 F. 3d 64, 75

( 1st Ci r . 2004) ( [ I ] n sui t s agai nst st at e of f i ci al s f or

decl ar at or y and i nj unct i ve r el i ef , a pl ai nt i f f may i nvoke t he

j ur i sdi ct i on of t he f eder al cour t s by asser t i ng a cl ai m of

pr eempt i on, even absent an expl i ci t st at ut or y cause of



15/34

15

act i on. ) ; Loyal Ti r e & Aut o Ct r . , I nc. v. Town of Woodbur y, 445

F. 3d 136, 149 ( 2d Ci r . 2006) ( Sot omayor , J . , maj or i t y opi ni on)

( a pl ai nt i f f s ri ght t o br i ng an act i on seeki ng decl ar at or y and

i nj unct i ve r el i ef f r om muni ci pal r egul at i on on t he gr ound t hat

f eder al l aw pr eempt s t hat r egul at i on i s undi sput ed) ; Qwest

Corp. v. Ci t y of Sant a Fe, New Mexi co, 380 F. 3d 1258, 1266 ( 10t h

Ci r . 2004) ( A part y may br i ng a cl ai m under t he Supr emacy

Cl ause t hat a l ocal enactment i s preempt ed even i f t he f eder al

l aw at i ssue does not creat e a pr i vat e r i ght of act i on. ) ;

Geor gi a Lat i no Al l i ance f or Human Ri ght s v. Geor gi a, 691 F. 3d

1250, 1262 ( 11t h Ci r . 2012) ( GLAHR) ( f i ndi ng, i n a chal l enge

t o a Geor gi a i mmi gr at i on l aw, t hat pr i vat e pl ai nt i f f s had a

r i ght of act i on, and stat i ng, [ l ] i ke t he ot her ci r cui t s t o

addr ess t he i ssue head on, we have l i t t l e di f f i cul t y i n hol di ng

t hat [ Pl ai nt i f f s] have an i mpl i ed r i ght of acti on t o asser t a

pr eempt i on cl ai m seeki ng i nj unct i ve . . . r el i ef (quot i ng

Pl anned Par ent hood of Houst on & Se. Tex. v. Sanchez, 403 F. 3d

324, 334 n. 47, 335 ( 5t h Ci r . 2005) ) .

Thi s Cour t , t oo, has al l owed pr i vat e par t i es t o asser t

pr eempt i on cl ai ms seeki ng i nj unct i ve r el i ef . See AES Spar r ows

Poi nt LNG, LLC v. Smi t h, 527 F. 3d 120, 127 ( 4t h Ci r . 2008)

( f i ndi ng f eder al pr eempt i on, under t he Supr emacy Cl ause, of a

l ocal zoni ng or di nance i n a case br ought by pr i vat e compani es) ;

Nor f ol k S. Ry. Co. v. Ci t y of Al exandr i a, 608 F. 3d 150, 160 ( 4t h



16/34

16

Ci r . 2010) ( f i ndi ng pr eempt i on, under t he Supr emacy Cl ause, of a

muni ci pal haul ordi nance i n case br ought by rai l r oad company) .

As t he above ci t ed cases make cl ear , t he St at e s r el i ance on t he

Dougl as di ssent i s mi spl aced.

We hol d t hat under t he Supremacy Cl ause Lowcount r y

Pl ai nt i f f s have an i mpl i ed r i ght of act i on t o seek i nj unct i ve

r el i ef f r om Sout h Car ol i na s Act 69 on f eder al pr eempt i on

grounds.

B.

Sout h Car ol i na next ar gues t hat t he di st r i ct cour t shoul d

have decl i ned to hear t he case under Younger abst ent i on. A

di st r i ct cour t s deci si on t o decl i ne t o abst ai n under Younger v.

Har r i s, 401 U. S. 37 ( 1971) , i s r evi ewed f or abuse of di scr et i on.

Li f e Par t ner s, I nc. v. Mor r i son, 484 F. 3d 284, 301 ( 4t h Ci r .

2007) .

Abstent i on f r om t he exer ci se of f eder al j ur i sdi ct i on i s

t he except i on, not t he r ul e. Col o. Ri ver Wat er Conser vat i on

Di st . v. Uni t ed St ates, 424 U. S. 800, 813 ( 1976) . As a gener al

r ul e, f eder al cour t s have a st r i ct dut y t o exer ci se t he

j ur i sdi ct i on t hat i s conf er r ed upon t hem by Congr ess .

Quackenbush v. Al l st ate I ns. Co. , 517 U. S. 706, 716 ( 1996) . One

of t he l i mi t ed except i ons t o t hi s r ul e i s f ound i n Younger ,

wher e the Supr eme Cour t hel d t hat f eder al cour t s shoul d not st ay

or enj oi n pendi ng st at e cour t cr i mi nal pr osecut i ons except i n



17/34

17

speci al ci r cumst ances, such as bad f ai t h or har assment . 401 U. S.

at 41, 54. We have expl ai ned t hat Younger appl i es when t he

r equest ed r el i ef woul d i nt er f er e wi t h ( 1) an ongoi ng st at e

j udi ci al proceedi ng, i nst i t ut ed pr i or t o any subst ant i al

pr ogr ess i n t he f eder al pr oceedi ng; t hat ( 2) i mpl i cat es

i mpor t ant , subst ant i al , or vi t al st at e i nt er est s; and ( 3)

pr ovi des an adequat e oppor t uni t y f or t he pl ai nt i f f t o r ai se t he

f eder al const i t ut i onal cl ai m advanced i n t he f eder al l awsui t .

Laur el Sand & Gr avel , I nc. v. Wi l son, 519 F. 3d 156, 165 ( 4t h

Ci r . 2008) ( quot i ng Moor e v. Ci t y of Ashevi l l e, 396 F. 3d 385,

390 ( 4t h Ci r . 2005) ) . As t her e i s no ongoi ng st at e j udi ci al

pr oceedi ng her e, Younger abst ent i on i s i nappl i cabl e.

Sout h Car ol i na, however , asser t s t hat i t i s basi ng i t s

argument on Younger s warni ng about f eder al cour t s enj oi ni ng

t hr eat ened or ant i ci pat ed st at e cr i mi nal pr oceedi ngs.

Appel l ant s Openi ng Br . 22- 23 ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) . 6 Younger

states:

[ W] hen absol ut el y necessary f or pr ot ect i on ofconst i t ut i onal r i ght s, cour t s of t he Uni t ed St at eshave power t o enj oi n st at e of f i cer s f r om i nst i t ut i ngcr i mi nal act i ons. But t hi s may not be done, exceptunder ext r aor di nary ci r cumst ances, wher e t he danger of

i r r epar abl e l oss i s bot h gr eat and i mmedi at e.Or di nar i l y, t her e shoul d be no i nt er f er ence wi t h suchof f i cer s; pr i mar i l y, t hey ar e char ged wi t h t he dut y of

6 We obser ve t hat t he word ant i ci pat ed does not appear i nYounger .



18/34

18

pr osecut i ng of f ender s agai nst t he l aws of t he st at e,and must deci de when and how t hi s i s t o be done. Theaccused shoul d f i r st set up and r el y upon hi s def ensei n t he st at e cour t s, even t hough t hi s i nvol ves achal l enge of t he val i di t y of some st at ut e, unl ess i tpl ai nl y appear s t hat t hi s cour se woul d not af f or dadequat e pr ot ect i on.

Younger , 401 U. S. at 45 ( quot i ng Fenner v. Boyki n, 271 U. S. 240,

243- 44 ( 1926) ) . Those pr i nci pl es, Younger st at ed, have been

r epeat edl y f ol l owed and r eaf f i r med i n ot her cases i nvol vi ng

t hr eat ened pr osecut i ons. 401 U. S. at 45. The St ate ar gues t hat ,

based on pr i nci pl es of comi t y and f eder al i sm, i t i s

i nappr opr i at e f or a f eder al cour t t o enj oi n t hr eat ened st at e

cr i mi nal pr oceedi ngs when t he f eder al i ssue coul d be rai sed as a

def ense i n a st at e pr oceedi ng.

We di sagree. We have hel d t hat Younger does not bar t he

gr ant i ng of f eder al i nj unct i ve r el i ef when a st at e cr i mi nal

pr osecut i on i s expect ed and i mmi nent . Age of Maj or i t y Educ.

Cor p. v. Pr el l er , 512 F. 2d 1241, 1243 ( 4t h Ci r . 1975) ( en banc) .

We have al so drawn a di st i nct i on bet ween t he commencement of

f ormal enf orcement pr oceedi ngs, at whi ch poi nt Younger

appl i es, ver sus t he per i od of t i me when t her e i s onl y a t hr eat

of enf orcement , when Younger does not appl y. Tel co Commc ns,

I nc. v. Car baugh, 885 F. 2d 1225, 1229 ( 4t h Ci r . 1989) , cer t .

deni ed, 495 U. S. 904 ( 1990) . I n Tel co, wher e a st ate agency had

commenced an i nvest i gat i on of a f i r m, we hel d t hat abst ent i on

was not appr opr i ate because t he st ate pr oceedi ngs wer e i n a



19/34


20/34

20

The Supreme Cour t has made cl ear t hat i nj unct i ons of st at e

cr i mi nal st at ut es may be pr oper when const i t ut i onal r i ght s are

at i ssue:

I t i s cor r ect t hat gener al l y a cour t wi l l not enj oi nt he enf orcement of a cr i mi nal st atut e even t houghunconst i t ut i onal , si nce such a r esul t ser i ousl yi mpai r s t he St at e' s i nt er est i n enf or ci ng i t s cr i mi nall aws, and i mpl i cat es t he concer ns f or f eder al i sm whi chl i e at t he hear t of Younger . But t hi s i s not anabsol ut e pol i cy and i n some ci r cumst ances i nj unct i ver el i ef may be appr opr i at e. To j ust i f y suchi nt er f er ence t her e must be except i onal ci r cumst ancesand a cl ear showi ng t hat an i nj unct i on i s necessar y i nor der t o af f or d adequat e pr ot ect i on of const i t ut i onal

r i ght s.

Wool ey v. Maynar d, 430 U. S. 705, 712- 13 ( 1977) ( emphasi s added)

( ci t at i ons and i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . See al so Dor an

v. Sal em I nn, I nc. , 422 U. S. 922, 929- 31 ( 1975) ( af f i r mi ng gr ant

of pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on t o t wo bar owner s chal l engi ng t own

or di nance pr ohi bi t i ng t opl ess danci ng, f i ndi ng Younger

abst ent i on i nappl i cabl e, and hol di ng t hat , i n t he absence of a

st at e cr i mi nal pr oceedi ng, a pl ai nt i f f may chal l enge t he

const i t ut i onal i t y of t he st at e st at ut e i n f eder al cour t ,

assumi ng he can sat i sf y t he r equi r ement s f or f eder al

j ur i sdi ct i on) .

Fol l owi ng our r easoni ng i n Tel co, we hol d that Younger

abst ent i on i s i nappl i cabl e wher e, as her e, st at e pr oceedi ngs

have not begun agai nst t he f eder al pl ai nt i f f s and t he pl ai nt i f f s

seek i nj unct i ve r el i ef t o pr ot ect t hei r const i t ut i onal r i ght s.



21/34

21

Pl ai nt i f f s need not wai t t o be ar r est ed under t he chal l enged

sect i ons of t he Act bef or e t hey can asser t a const i t ut i onal

cl ai m. They need not l i ve under a cl oud of pr ol onged

uncer t ai nt y as t o t hei r r i ght s. Tel co, 885 F. 2d at 1229. The

di st r i ct cour t was cor r ect t o decl i ne t o abst ai n.

I V.

We t ur n now t o t he mer i t s. The di st r i ct cour t i ssued

pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i ons f or Sect i ons 4, 5, and 6( B) ( 2) of Act

69, f i ndi ng t hose sect i ons preempt ed by f eder al i mmi gr at i on l aw

and r egul at i ons. Sout h Car ol i na I I , 960 F. Supp. 2d at 466. The

St at e ar gues t he Act i s a pr oper exer ci se of i t s pol i ce power s

and does not under mi ne or conf l i ct wi t h f eder al l aw. Cour t s

r ecogni ze t hr ee t ypes of f eder al pr eempt i on: ( 1) expr ess

pr eempt i on, i n whi ch Congr ess expr essl y st at es i t s i nt ent t o

pr eempt st at e l aw, Cox v. Shal al a, 112 F. 3d 151, 154 ( 4t h Ci r .

1997) ; ( 2) f i el d pr eempt i on, i n whi ch Congr ess occupi es a

cer t ai n f i el d by r egul at i ng so per vasi vel y that t her e i s no

r oom l ef t f or t he st at es t o suppl ement f eder al l aw, i d. ( ci t i ng

Fi d. Sav. & Loan Ass n v. de l a Cuest a, 458 U. S. 141, 153

( 1982) ) , or wher e t her e i s a f eder al i nt er est . . . so domi nant

t hat t he f eder al syst em wi l l be assumed to pr ecl ude enf or cement

of st at e l aws on t he same subj ect , Ar i zona, 132 S. Ct . at 2501

( ci t at i on and i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ; and ( 3)

conf l i ct pr eempt i on, ar i si ng when st at e l aw i s pr eempt ed t o t he



22/34

22

ext ent i t act ual l y conf l i ct s wi t h f eder al l aw, Cox, 112 F. 3d at

154 ( ci t i ng Pac. Gas & El ec. Co. v. St at e Ener gy Res.

Conser vat i on & Dev. Comm n, 461 U. S. 190, 204 (1983) ) . The

Supr eme Cour t has i nst r uct ed t hat conf l i ct pr eempt i on i ncl udes

cases wher e compl i ance wi t h bot h f eder al and st ate r egul at i ons

i s a physi cal i mpossi bi l i t y, and t hose i nst ances wher e t he

chal l enged st ate l aw st ands as an obst acl e t o t he accompl i shment

and execut i on of t he f ul l pur poses and obj ect i ves of Congr ess.

Ar i zona, 132 S. Ct . at 2501 ( ci t at i ons and i nt er nal quot at i on

mar ks omi t t ed) . The di st r i ct cour t enj oi ned Sect i ons 4, 5, and

6( B) ( 2) under t heor i es of f i el d and conf l i ct pr eempt i on.

We not e t hat t he presumpt i on agai nst preempt i on does not

appl y her e because i mmi gr at i on i s an ar ea t r adi t i onal l y

r egul at ed by t he f eder al gover nment . Thi s Cour t has decl i ned t o

appl y t he pr esumpt i on agai nst preempt i on when deal i ng wi t h a

st at e l aw t hat r egul ates an ar ea wi t h aut hor i zed f eder al

pr esence, such as nat i onal banki ng. Epps v. J P Morgan Chase

Bank, N. A. , 675 F. 3d 315, 322 ( 4t h Ci r . 2012) . We f ur t her

decl i ne t o appl y the pr esumpt i on t o st at e l aws t hat concer n

i mmi gr at i on, an ar ea wi t h ext ensi ve f eder al pr esence. See

Ar i zona, 132 S. Ct . at 2510 ( obser vi ng t hat [ i ] mmi gr at i on

pol i cy shapes t he dest i ny of t he Nat i on and [ t ] he Nat i onal

Gover nment has si gni f i cant power t o r egul at e i mmi gr at i on) .

A.



23/34

23

Sect i ons 4( A) and ( C) of t he Act make i t a st at e f el ony f or

an unl awf ul l y pr esent per son t o al l ow hi msel f or her sel f t o be

t r anspor t ed or moved wi t hi n t he st ate or t o be harbored or

shel t er ed t o avoi d det ect i on. The di st r i ct cour t f ound t hese

subsect i ons essent i al l y cr i mi nal i ze mer e pr esence. Sout h

Car ol i na I I , 960 F. Supp. 2d at 467- 70. The St at e ar gues t hat

t hese sect i ons do not puni sh mere unl awf ul pr esence because t hey

requi r e t hat t he i l l egal l y pr esent al i en t ake acti on t o

t r anspor t , har bor or shel t er t hemsel ves wi t h t he i nt ent t o

f ur t her hi s or her unl awf ul ent r y i nt o t he Uni t ed St at es or t o

avoi d appr ehensi on or det ect i on. Appel l ant s Openi ng Br . 46.

Sout h Car ol i na al so pr esses t he ar gument t hat t hese sect i ons

onl y concer n t he hi st or i c pol i ce power s of t he St at e and t hus

shoul d be gi ven gr eat def er ence. I d. at 41.

The Supreme Cour t r ecogni zed i n Ar i zona t hat [ a] s a

gener al r ul e, i t i s not a cr i me f or a r emovabl e al i en t o r emai n

pr esent i n t he Uni t ed St ates. 132 S. Ct . at 2505. We are hard-

pr essed t o see how an unl awf ul l y pr esent al i en, goi ng about her

nor mal dai l y l i f e, woul d be abl e t o avoi d vi ol at i ng Sect i ons

4( A) and ( C) of t he Act . Si mpl y st ayi ng i n one s home coul d be

vi ewed as an at t empt t o shel t er onesel f f r om det ect i on. Taki ng

a bus or dr i vi ng home at t he end of t he wor kday woul d be

t r anspor t [ i ng] onesel f t o t he shel t er of one s home t o avoi d

det ect i on. The br oad sweep of t hese sect i ons vi ol at es t he cl ear



24/34

24

r ul e of Ar i zona t hat unl awf ul pr esence i s not a cr i mi nal

of f ense.

I n an anal ogous case, t he El event h Ci r cui t af f i r med a

pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on agai nst a sect i on of an Al abama st at ut e

t hat pr ohi bi t ed st at e cour t s f r om enf or ci ng a cont r act t o whi ch

an unl awf ul l y pr esent al i en was a par t y. Uni t ed St at es v.

Al abama, 691 F. 3d 1269, 1296 ( 11t h Ci r . 2012) . The cour t f ound

t he st atut e t o be ext r aor di nary and unpr ecedent ed, and

cr i t i ci zed i t s br oad sweep: Essent i al l y, t he abi l i t y t o

mai nt ai n even a mi ni mal exi st ence i s no l onger an opt i on f or

unl awf ul l y pr esent al i ens i n Al abama. I d. at 1293. I n f i ndi ng

t he sect i on pr eempt ed, t he cour t noted t hat i t bur dened a

capabi l i t y t hat , i n pr act i cal appl i cat i on, i s essent i al f or an

i ndi vi dual t o l i ve and conduct dai l y af f ai r s. I d. at 1294.

I n essence, Sect i ons 4( A) and ( C) oper at e t o cr i mi nal i ze

unl awf ul pr esence, a st ance pl ai nl y at odds wi t h f eder al l aw.

Under f eder al l aw, unl awf ul l y pr esent al i ens are subj ect t o

ci vi l r emoval pr oceedi ngs. See 8 U. S. C. 1227. A pr i nci pal

f eat ur e of t he r emoval syst em i s t he br oad di scr et i on exer ci sed

by i mmi gr at i on of f i ci al s. Ar i zona, 132 S. Ct . at 2499. Thi s

di scret i on i s necessar y because i t i nvol ves pol i cy choi ces t hat

bear on t hi s Nat i on s i nt er nat i onal r el at i ons. I d. The St at e,

by cr i mi nal i zi ng what Congr ess has deemed a ci vi l of f ense and

ent r ust ed t o t he di scret i on of t he execut i ve br anch, i s



25/34

25

pur su[ i ng] pol i ci es t hat under mi ne f eder al l aw. I d. at 2510.

Sect i ons 4( A) and ( C) are t hus conf l i ct pr eempt ed because t hey

st and as an obst acl e t o t he execut i on of t he f eder al r emoval

syst em and i nt er f er e wi t h t he di scret i on ent r ust ed t o f eder al

i mmi gr at i on of f i ci al s. They make cr i mi nal s out of al i ens

at t empt i ng t o do no more t han go t o school , go to work, and care

f or t hei r f ami l i es. Cf . Ar i zona, 132 S. Ct . at 2504 ( [ M] aki ng

cr i mi nal s out of al i ens engaged i n unaut hor i zed work al i ens

who al r eady f ace t he possi bi l i t y of empl oyer expl oi t at i on

because of t hei r r emovabl e st at us woul d be i nconsi st ent wi t h

f eder al pol i cy and obj ect i ves. ) .

The di st r i ct cour t was cor r ect t o enj oi n Sect i ons 4( A) and

( C) because t hey cr i mi nal i ze act i ons t hat Congr ess has, as a

pol i cy choi ce, deci ded ar e a ci vi l mat t er . We hol d t hat Sect i ons

4( A) and ( C) are pr eempt ed by f ederal l aw.

B.

Sect i ons 4( B) and ( D) of t he Act make i t a st at e f el ony t o

t r anspor t , move or at t empt t o t r anspor t or conceal , har bor or

shel t er a per son wi t h i nt ent t o f ur t her t hat per son s unl awf ul

ent r y i nt o t he Uni t ed St at es or t o hel p t hat per son avoi d

appr ehensi on or det ect i on. The di st r i ct cour t f ound t he

pr ovi si ons pr esent a cl assi c case of f i el d pr eempt i on. Sout h

Car ol i na I , 840 F. Supp. 2d at 917. The sect i ons ar e si mi l ar t o

a f eder al st at ut e t hat makes i t unl awf ul t o t r anspor t or move



26/34

26

or conceal [ ] , har bor [ ] or shi el d[ ] an unl awf ul al i en. 8 U. S. C.

1324( a) ( 1) ( A) ( i i ) and ( i i i ) . Whi l e t he f eder al l aw aut hor i zes

st at e and l ocal l aw enf or cement of f i cer s t o make ar r est s f or

vi ol at i ons under t he st at ut e, pr osecut i on i s at t he di scret i on

of f eder al pr osecut or s and t he cases ar e br ought i n f eder al

cour t . I d. 1324( c) .

The St at e ar gues t hat i t i s possi bl e t o compl y wi t h bot h

t he f eder al and st at e har bor i ng l aws, and t hat t he st at e l aw i s

not f i el d pr eempt ed because t he f eder al r egul at i ons do not

pr ovi de a f ul l set of st andar ds. I d. Pr ovi si ons of t he Uni t ed

St at es Code, however , show otherwi se. The I mmi gr at i on and

Nat ur al i zat i on Act ( t he I NA) pr ovi des f or penal t i es agai nst

t hi r d par t i es engaged i n a f ul l set of har bor i ng and

t r anspor t i ng of f enses: t he I NA aut hor i zes penal t i es agai nst

t hose who conceal , har bor , or shi el d unl awf ul l y pr esent al i ens

f r om det ect i on, 8 U. S. C. 1324( a) ( 1) ( A) ( i i i ) ; t hose who

encour age or i nduce al i ens t o ent er t he Uni t ed St at es wi t hout

l awf ul aut hor i zat i on, i d. 1324( a) ( 1) ( A) ( i v) ; t hose who

t r anspor t an al i en wi t hi n t he Uni t ed St at es i n f ur t her ance of

t he al i en s vi ol at i on of f eder al i mmi gr at i on l aws, i d.

1324( a) ( 1) ( A) ( i i ) ; and t hose who assi st or conspi r e i n t he

commi ssi on of t hose act s, i d. 1324( a) ( 1) ( A) ( v) . Ther e ar e al so

penal t i es f or smuggl i ng or ot her wi se br i ngi ng al i ens i nt o t he

Uni t ed St at es wi t hout l awf ul aut hor i zat i on, i d. 1323,



27/34

27

1324( a) ( 1) ( A) ( i ) , 1324( a) ( 2) , and f or knowi ngl y ai di ng or

assi st i ng cer t ai n i nadmi ssi bl e al i ens t o ent er unl awf ul l y, i d.

1327. The f eder al gover nment has cl ear l y occupi ed the f i el d of

r egul at i ng t he conceal i ng, har bor i ng, and t r anspor t i ng of

unl awf ul l y pr esent al i ens.

The El event h Ci r cui t af f i r med prel i mi nary i nj unct i ons

agai nst si mi l ar ant i - harbor i ng schemes i n Al abama and Geor gi a.

See GLAHR, 691 F. 3d 1250; Uni t ed Stat es v. Al abama, 691 F. 3d

1269. The cour t f ound t hat Sect i on 7 of Geor gi a s I l l egal

I mmi gr at i on Ref orm and Enf orcement Act of 2011, whi ch made i t a

st at e cr i mi nal of f ense t o t r anspor t , conceal , or har bor a

r emovabl e al i en, was both f i el d and conf l i ct pr eempt ed. GLAHR,

691 F. 3d at 1263- 64. The sect i on was f i el d pr eempt ed because

t he f ederal government has cl ear l y expr essed more t han a

per i pher al concer n wi t h t he ent r y, movement , and r esi dence of

al i ens wi t hi n t he Uni t ed St at es, and t he br eadt h of t hese l aws

i l l ust r at es an over whel mi ngl y domi nant f eder al i nt er est i n t he

f i el d. I d. at 1264. The cour t f ound t he sect i on was conf l i ct

pr eempt ed because, by al l owi ng f or st ate pr osecut i on of

i mmi gr at i on cr i mes t hat Congr ess had conf i ned t o f eder al cour t ,

t he sect i on pr esent [ ed] an obst acl e t o t he execut i on of t he

f eder al st at ut or y scheme and chal l enge[ d] f eder al supr emacy i n

t he r eal m of i mmi gr at i on. I d. at 1265.



28/34

28

The El event h Ci r cui t al so af f i r med a prel i mi nary i nj unct i on

of Sect i on 13 of Al abama s Taxpayer and Ci t i zen Pr ot ect i on Act .

Sect i on 13 of t he st at ut e cr eat ed st at e cr i mes f or conceal i ng,

har bor i ng, t r anspor t i ng, or shi el di ng an unl awf ul l y pr esent

al i en. The El event h Ci r cui t f ound t he sect i on t o be bot h f i el d

and conf l i ct pr eempt ed, Al abama, 691 F. 3d at 1285- 88, and

obser ved t hat f ederal l aw pr ovi des a compr ehensi ve f r amework t o

penal i ze t he t r anspor t at i on, conceal ment , and i nducement of

unl awf ul l y pr esent al i ens, i d. at 1285 ( ci t at i on and i nt er nal

quotat i on marks omi t t ed) . Al abama, by enact i ng concur r ent st ate

l egi sl at i on i n a f i el d of f eder al concer n, under mi nes t he

i nt ent of Congr ess t o conf er di scr et i on on t he Execut i ve Br anch

i n mat t er s concer ni ng i mmi gr at i on. I d. at 1287.

We f i nd t he El event h Ci r cui t s r easoni ng per suasi ve.

Sect i ons 4( B) and ( D) of t he Act are f i el d pr eempt ed because t he

vast ar r ay of f eder al l aws and r egul at i ons on t hi s subj ect , see

supr a, sl i p op. at 24- 25, i s so per vasi ve . . . t hat Congr ess

l ef t no r oom f or t he St at es t o suppl ement i t . Ar i zona, 132 S.

Ct . at 2501 ( ci t at i on and i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .

[ W] her e t he f eder al gover nment , i n t he exer ci se of i t s super i or

aut hor i t y i n t hi s f i el d, has enact ed a compl et e scheme of

r egul at i on . . . st at es cannot , i nconsi st ent l y wi t h t he pur pose

of Congr ess, conf l i ct or i nt er f er e wi t h, cur t ai l or compl ement ,



29/34

29

t he f eder al l aw, or enf or ce addi t i onal or auxi l i ar y

r egul at i ons. Hi nes v. Davi dowi t z, 312 U. S. 52, 66- 67 ( 1941) .

Fur t her mor e, t he sect i ons ar e conf l i ct pr eempt ed because

t her e i s a f eder al i nt er est . . . so domi nant t hat t he f eder al

syst em wi l l be assumed t o pr ecl ude enf orcement of st ate l aws on

t he same subj ect . Ar i zona, 132 S. Ct . at 2501 ( ci t at i on and

i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . We observe t hat [ t ] he

dynami c nat ur e of r el at i ons wi t h ot her count r i es r equi r es t he

Execut i ve Br anch t o ensur e that enf or cement pol i ci es ar e

consi st ent wi t h t hi s Nat i on s f or ei gn pol i cy wi t h r espect t o

t hese and ot her r eal i t i es. I d. at 2499. Sect i ons 4( B) and ( D)

cr eat e an obst acl e t o the smoot h f unct i oni ng of f eder al

i mmi gr at i on l aw, i mpr oper l y pl ace i n t he hands of st at e

of f i ci al s t he nat i on s i mmi gr at i on pol i cy, and st r i p f eder al

of f i ci al s of t he aut hor i t y and di scr et i on necessar y i n managi ng

f orei gn af f ai rs .

We hol d that Sect i ons 4( B) and (D) of Act 69 are pr eempt ed

by f eder al l aw.

C.

Sect i on 5 makes i t a st at e mi sdemeanor f or any person 18

year s or ol der t o f ai l t o car r y a cer t i f i cat e of al i en

r egi st r at i on or al i en r egi st r at i on r ecei pt car d i ssued t o t he

per son pur suant t o 8 U. S. C. Sect i on 1304. Thi s pr ovi si on i s

al most i dent i cal t o t he f eder al r egi st r at i on st at ut e, 8 U. S. C.



30/34

30

1304( e) , whi ch r equi r es ever y al i en i n t he U. S. over t he age of

18 t o at al l t i mes car r y wi t h hi m and have i n hi s per sonal

possessi on any cer t i f i cat e of al i en r egi st r at i on or al i en

r egi st r at i on r ecei pt car d i ssued under t hat st at ut e.

I n Ar i zona v. Uni t ed St at es, t he Supr eme Cour t conf r ont ed a

si mi l ar st at ut e. Sect i on 3 of Ar i zona s S. B. 1070 f or bade t he

wi l l f ul f ai l ur e t o compl et e or car r y an al i en r egi st r at i on

document . . . i n vi ol at i on of 8 Uni t ed St at es Code sect i on

1304( e) or 1306( a) . Ar i z. Rev. St at . Ann. 111509( A) ( West

Supp. 2011) . The Supr eme Cour t hel d Sect i on 3 t o be preempted by

f eder al l aw. Ar i zona, 132 S. Ct . at 2503. Det ai l i ng t he

f r amework and penal t i es Congr ess has est abl i shed f or al i en

r egi st r at i on, t he Cour t f ound t hat t he Feder al Gover nment has

occupi ed t he f i el d of al i en r egi st r at i on. I d. at 2502. Wher e

Congr ess occupi es an ent i r e f i el d, as i t has i n t he f i el d of

al i en r egi st r at i on, even compl ement ar y st at e r egul at i on i s

i mper mi ssi bl e. I d.

Accor di ngl y, we hol d t hat Sect i on 5 i s f i el d pr eempt ed by

f eder al l aw.

D.

Sect i on 6( B) ( 2) makes i t unl awf ul f or any per son t o di spl ay

or possess a f al se or count er f ei t I D f or t he pur pose of pr ovi ng

l awf ul pr esence i n t he Uni t ed St at es. Feder al l aw makes i t a

cr i me t o count er f ei t f eder al i mmi gr at i on document s or t o use



31/34

31

such document s i n an ef f or t t o sat i sf y i mmi gr at i on r equi r ement s.

8 U. S. C. 1324c( a) ( 1) and ( 2) ; 18 U. S. C. 1546. The di st r i ct

cour t f ound t hat Sect i on 6( B) ( 2) , l i ke Sect i on 5, deal t wi t h

al i en regi st r at i on and, f ol l owi ng Ar i zona, was pr eempt ed because

Congr ess has occupi ed t he f i el d of al i en r egi st r at i on. Sout h

Car ol i na I I , 960 F. Supp. 2d at 469.

Sout h Car ol i na argues t hat Sect i on 6( B) ( 2) shoul d not be

encompassed by t he al i en r egi st r at i on f i el d r ecogni zed by

Ar i zona because thi s st at ut e addr esses ordi nar y f r aud.

Appel l ant s Openi ng Br . 49- 50. The St at e f ur t her ar gues t hat t he

pr esumpt i on agai nst pr eempt i on appl i es t o t hi s sect i on because

f r aud i s an ar ea t r adi t i onal l y f or st at e l egi sl at i on. I d. at

50. Appel l ee Uni t ed St at es r esponds t hat Sect i on 6( B) ( 2) does

not addr ess or di nar y f r aud but r at her const i t ut es t he St at e s

at t empt t o enf or ce f eder al pr ovi si ons desi gned t o pr event al i ens

f r om ci r cumvent i ng f eder al i mmi gr at i on l aw. Uni t ed St at es Br .

23. Fur t her , pr ot ect i ng t he i nt egr i t y of t he f eder al

i mmi gr at i on scheme i s an excl usi vel y f eder al f unct i on and not

t he pur vi ew of t he St at es. I d. at 23- 24.

As an i ni t i al mat t er , when t he f r aud at i ssue i nvol ves

f eder al i mmi gr at i on document s, t he pr esumpt i on agai nst

pr eempt i on does not appl y. Cf . Buckman Co. v. Pl ai nt i f f s Legal

Comm. , 531 U. S. 341, 347 ( 2001) ( Pol i ci ng f r aud agai nst f eder al

agenci es i s har dl y a f i el d whi ch t he St at es have t r adi t i onal l y



32/34

32

occupi ed . . . . ) ( ci t at i on and i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) .

As wi t h ot her i mmi gr at i on- r el at ed measur es, pr osecut i on f or

count er f ei t i ng or usi ng f eder al i mmi gr at i on document s i s at t he

di scr et i on of t he Depar t ment of J ust i ce act i ng t hr ough t he

Uni t ed St at es At t or ney, and al l owi ng t he st at e to pr osecut e

i ndi vi dual s f or vi ol at i ons of a st at e l aw t hat i s hi ghl y si mi l ar

t o a f eder al l aw str i ps f eder al of f i ci al s of t hat di scr et i on. As

t he Ar i zona Cour t observed, Di scr et i on i n t he enf or cement of

i mmi grat i on l aw embraces i mmedi at e human concer ns and al so

i nvol ve[ s] pol i cy choi ces t hat bear on t hi s Nat i on s

i nt er nat i onal r el at i ons. 132 S. Ct . at 2499.

Sect i on 6( B) ( 2) i s f i el d pr eempt ed i n t hat Congr ess has

passed sever al l aws deal i ng wi t h cr eat i ng, possessi ng, and usi ng

f r audul ent i mmi gr at i on document s. See 8 U. S. C. 1324c( a) ( 1) and

( 2) ; 18 U. S. C. 1546 ( pr ovi di ng penal t i es up t o 25 year s

i mpr i sonment ) . Congr ess has occupi ed t hi s f i el d and, i n such a

case, even compl ement ary or auxi l i ary st at e l aws ar e not

per mi t t ed. See Hi nes, 312 U. S. at 66- 67; Ar i zona, 132 S. Ct . at

2501- 02. I n addi t i on, Sect i on 6( B) ( 2) i s conf l i ct pr eempt ed

because enf orcement of t hese f eder al st at ut es necessar i l y

i nvol ves t he di scr et i on of f eder al of f i ci al s, and a st at e s own

l aw i n t hi s ar ea, i nvi t i ng st at e pr osecut i on, woul d st and[ ] as



33/34

33

an obst acl e to the accompl i shment and execut i on of t he f ul l

pur poses and obj ect i ves of Congr ess. Hi nes, 312 U. S. at 67.

We hol d Sect i on 6( B) ( 2) i s preempt ed by f eder al l aw.

V.

To obt ai n a pr el i mi nary i nj unct i on, a movi ng par t y must

est abl i sh t he pr esence of t he f ol l owi ng: ( 1) a cl ear showi ng

t hat i t wi l l l i kel y succeed on t he mer i t s; ( 2) a cl ear showi ng

t hat i t i s l i kel y t o be i r r epar abl y har med absent pr el i mi nar y

r el i ef ; ( 3) t he bal ance of equi t i es t i ps i n f avor of t he movi ng

par t y; and ( 4) a pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on i s i n t he publ i c

i nt er est . Real Tr ut h About Obama, I nc. v. Fed. El ect i on Comm. ,

575 F. 3d 342, 34647 ( 4t h Ci r . 2009) ; W. Va. Ass n of Cl ub

Owner s & Fr ater nal Ser vs. , I nc. v. Musgrave, 553 F. 3d 292, 298

( 4t h Ci r . 2009) .

We have hel d that Lowcount r y Pl ai nt i f f s and the Uni t ed

St ates have made a cl ear showi ng t hat t hey ar e l i kel y t o succeed

on t he mer i t s of t hei r chal l enge t o Sect i ons 4, 5, and 6( B) ( 2)

of Act 69. We f ur t her hol d t hat t he appel l ee- pl ai nt i f f s have

made a cl ear showi ng t hey wi l l l i kel y suf f er i r r epar abl e har m i f

an i nj unct i on i s not gr ant ed, t hat t he bal ance of equi t i es t i ps

i n f avor of t he appel l ee- pl ai nt i f f s, and t hat pr el i mi nar y

i nj uncti ve r el i ef i s i n t he publ i c i nt er est . See Sout h Car ol i na

I , 840 F. Supp. 2d at 924- 27. The i r r epar abl e i nj ur y t o t he

nat i on s f or ei gn pol i cy i f t he r el evant sect i ons t ake ef f ect has



34/34

been cl ear l y est abl i shed by t he Uni t ed St ates. And f or

i ndi vi dual , unl awf ul l y pr esent i mmi gr ant s and ot her s, t he

l i kel i hood of chaos r esul t i ng f r om Sout h Car ol i na enf or ci ng i t s

separat e i mmi gr at i on r egi me i s apparent .

VI .

For t he r easons st at ed, t he or der of t he di st r i ct cour t

gr ant i ng a pr el i mi nar y i nj unct i on i s

AFFI RMED.


lowcountry immigration coalition v. south carolina (4th cir. july 23, 2013)

Documents