Arizona v. United States
E4583
Arizona v. United States is a 2012 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited state authority over immigration enforcement by affirming broad federal power in this area.
All labels observed (5)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Arizona v. United States canonical | 10 |
| Arizona SB 1070 | 1 |
| Arizona Senate Bill 1070 | 1 |
| Arizona v. United States (post-remand proceedings) | 1 |
| United States v. Arizona | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T33058 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
Target entity: Arizona v. United States Context triple: [Supremacy Clause, interpretedInCase, Arizona v. United States]
-
A.
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization is the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe v. Wade and ended the federal constitutional right to abortion.
-
B.
Wickard v. Filburn
Wickard v. Filburn is a landmark 1942 U.S. Supreme Court case that dramatically expanded federal regulatory power by holding that even purely local, non-commercial activity could be regulated under the Commerce Clause if it had a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
-
C.
United States v. Nixon
United States v. Nixon was a landmark 1974 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited presidential privilege and compelled President Richard Nixon to release the Watergate tapes, reinforcing the principle that not even the president is above the law.
-
D.
Roe v. Wade
Roe v. Wade was a landmark 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that recognized a constitutional right to abortion, profoundly shaping American law and politics until it was overturned in 2022.
-
E.
Bush v. Gore
Bush v. Gore is the landmark 2000 U.S. Supreme Court decision that effectively resolved the disputed presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore by halting the Florida recount.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
Target entity: Arizona v. United States Target entity description: Arizona v. United States is a 2012 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited state authority over immigration enforcement by affirming broad federal power in this area.
-
A.
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization is the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe v. Wade and ended the federal constitutional right to abortion.
-
B.
Wickard v. Filburn
Wickard v. Filburn is a landmark 1942 U.S. Supreme Court case that dramatically expanded federal regulatory power by holding that even purely local, non-commercial activity could be regulated under the Commerce Clause if it had a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
-
C.
United States v. Nixon
United States v. Nixon was a landmark 1974 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited presidential privilege and compelled President Richard Nixon to release the Watergate tapes, reinforcing the principle that not even the president is above the law.
-
D.
Roe v. Wade
Roe v. Wade was a landmark 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that recognized a constitutional right to abortion, profoundly shaping American law and politics until it was overturned in 2022.
-
E.
Bush v. Gore
Bush v. Gore is the landmark 2000 U.S. Supreme Court decision that effectively resolved the disputed presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore by halting the Florida recount.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (50)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
federal court case ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
administrative law
ⓘ
constitutional law ⓘ |
| arguedDate | 2012-04-25 ⓘ |
| citation | 567 U.S. 387 ⓘ |
| concurrenceInPartAndDissentInPartBy |
Antonin Scalia
ⓘ
Clarence Thomas ⓘ Samuel A. Alito Jr. ⓘ
surface form:
Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
|
| constitutionalProvisionInvolved |
Article VI
ⓘ
surface form:
Article VI of the United States Constitution
Supremacy Clause ⓘ |
| country |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 2012-06-25 ⓘ |
| docketNumber | 11-182 ⓘ |
| fullName | Arizona v. United States self-link ⓘ |
| holding |
Federal law preempts several provisions of Arizona S.B. 1070 regulating immigration enforcement.
ⓘ
Section 2(B) of S.B. 1070, requiring officers to make a reasonable attempt to determine immigration status during lawful stops, is not facially preempted. ⓘ Section 3 of S.B. 1070, creating a state crime for failure to carry federal registration documents, is preempted. ⓘ Section 5(C) of S.B. 1070, criminalizing unauthorized aliens seeking or engaging in work, is preempted. ⓘ Section 6 of S.B. 1070, authorizing warrantless arrests based on possible removability, is preempted. ⓘ States may not enact or enforce immigration policies that conflict with federal immigration law. ⓘ |
| impact |
Limited state authority to create independent immigration enforcement schemes.
ⓘ
Reinforced federal primacy in immigration enforcement policy. ⓘ |
| joinedMajority |
John G. Roberts Jr.
ⓘ
surface form:
John G. Roberts, Jr.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg ⓘ Sonia Sotomayor ⓘ Stephen G. Breyer ⓘ |
| jurisdiction |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| justiceNotParticipating | Elena Kagan ⓘ |
| keyPrinciple |
State laws are preempted when they conflict with the federal regulatory scheme on immigration.
ⓘ
The federal government has broad, dominant authority over immigration and alien status. ⓘ |
| legalSubject |
federal preemption
ⓘ
federalism ⓘ immigration law ⓘ |
| lowerCourtDisposition | Affirmed in part and reversed in part ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | Anthony M. Kennedy ⓘ |
| originatingCourt | United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ⓘ |
| petitioner |
U.S. state of Arizona
ⓘ
surface form:
State of Arizona
|
| popularNameOfLawAtIssue | Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act ⓘ |
| relatedCase |
De Canas v. Bica
ⓘ
Hines v. Davidowitz ⓘ |
| relatedConcept |
conflict preemption
ⓘ
field preemption ⓘ |
| reporter | United States Reports ⓘ |
| respondent |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| stateLawAtIssue |
Arizona v. United States
self-linksurface differs
ⓘ
surface form:
Arizona Senate Bill 1070
|
| volume | 567 ⓘ |
| vote | 5-3 ⓘ |
| yearDecided | 2012 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Subject: Arizona v. United States Description of subject: Arizona v. United States is a 2012 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited state authority over immigration enforcement by affirming broad federal power in this area.
Referenced by (14)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.