Statements (56)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| gptkbp:instance_of |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
|
| gptkbp:argued_on |
April 25, 2012
|
| gptkbp:case_analysis |
Used in law schools for constitutional law education
Examined the balance of power in immigration enforcement Relevant to ongoing immigration reform discussions |
| gptkbp:case_number |
11-182
Originated from Arizona's immigration law challenges |
| gptkbp:case_outcome |
Majority opinion emphasized federal authority
Allowed some provisions to stand Unconstitutional provisions Partial victory for the federal government Influenced public opinion on immigration policy Invalidated provisions allowing police to check immigration status |
| gptkbp:case_significance |
Highlighted immigration enforcement issues
|
| gptkbp:case_types |
Constitutional law case
|
| gptkbp:consequences |
Set limits on state immigration enforcement authority
Influenced future immigration laws |
| gptkbp:decided_by |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
June 25, 2012 |
| gptkbp:dissenting_opinion |
gptkb:Justice_Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg
Dissent argued for state rights |
| gptkbp:has_implications_for |
State sovereignty
|
| gptkbp:historical_context |
Post-9/11 immigration policies
|
| https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label |
Arizona v. United States
|
| gptkbp:impact |
State immigration policies
|
| gptkbp:involved_parties |
gptkb:United_States_government
gptkb:State_of_Arizona |
| gptkbp:judged_by |
5-3 decision
|
| gptkbp:judges |
Justices Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor
|
| gptkbp:judicial_review |
Constitutionality of state laws
Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito Reviewed by the Supreme Court for constitutionality |
| gptkbp:legal_context |
Preemption doctrine
|
| gptkbp:legal_framework |
Federal immigration law
Affected similar state laws across the country Limited state enforcement powers |
| gptkbp:legal_issue |
Immigration enforcement
Ongoing discussions about state vs. federal powers |
| gptkbp:legal_outcome |
Struck down 'show me your papers' provision
Struck down key provisions of SB 1070 |
| gptkbp:legal_representation |
gptkb:Kris_Kobach
Federal supremacy Solicitor General Donald Verrilli |
| gptkbp:legislation |
gptkb:Immigration_and_Nationality_Act
Various state laws challenged |
| gptkbp:media_coverage |
Extensive coverage
|
| gptkbp:outcome |
Parts of Arizona's SB 1070 were struck down
|
| gptkbp:precedent |
Set precedent for future cases
State immigration laws |
| gptkbp:public_perception |
gptkb:Justice_Anthony_Kennedy
|
| gptkbp:public_reaction |
Controversial ruling
|
| gptkbp:related_cases |
gptkb:Chamber_of_Commerce_v._Whiting
|
| gptkbp:related_to |
gptkb:SB_1070
|
| gptkbp:significance |
Federal vs. state power in immigration law
|
| gptkbp:bfsParent |
gptkb:William_Rehnquist
|
| gptkbp:bfsLayer |
4
|