TITLE

PLENARY POWER PREEMPTION

AUTHOR(S)
Abrams, Kerry
PUB. DATE
May 2013
SOURCE
Virginia Law Review;May2013, Vol. 99 Issue 3, p601
SOURCE TYPE
Academic Journal
DOC. TYPE
Essay
ABSTRACT
The essay discusses the U.S. Supreme Court case Arizona v. United States, which invalidated various sections of Arizona's restrictive S.B. 1070 immigration law. The author argues that the court utilized a form of preemption related to the plenary power doctrine, which allowed it to avoid problems associated with executive power regarding immigration as well as deal with the fact that no equal protection doctrine for unauthorized aliens exists in the U.S. Constitution.
ACCESSION #
87732170

 

Related Articles

  • IMMIGRATION FEDERALISM: A REAPPRAISAL. GULASEKARAM, PRATHEEPAN; RAMAKRISHNAN, S. KARTHICK // New York University Law Review;Dec2013, Vol. 88 Issue 6, p2074 

    This Article identifies how the current spate of state and local regulation is changing the way elected officials, scholars, courts, and the public think about the constitutional dimensions of immigration law and governmental responsibility for immigration enforcement. Reinvigorating the...

  • RECENTERING FOREIGN AFFAIRS PREEMPTION IN ARIZONA V. UNITED STATES: FEDERAL PLENARY POWER, THE SPHERES OF GOVERNMENT, AND THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF S.B. 1070. CHARLES, PATRICK J. // Cleveland State Law Review;2012, Vol. 60 Issue 1, p133 

    The article reflects on the U.S. Supreme Court's granting of certiorari in Arizona v. United States which is a foreign affairs preemption case concerning immigration and examines the plenary power doctrine, separate identification and complete vesting of a power or authority in a governing body...

  • CASUAL OR COERCIVE? RETENTION OF IDENTIFICATION IN POLICE-CITIZEN ENCOUNTERS. Grano, Aidan Taft // Columbia Law Review;Jun2013, Vol. 113 Issue 5, p1283 

    In Bostick and Drayton, the Supreme Court announced that per se rules were inappropriate in answering the Fourth Amendment seizure question, "Would a reasonable citizen feel free to leave?" But when, if ever, can one factor in a pedestrian encounter with police be so inherently coercive that it...

  • RENDITION RESISTANCE. LASCH, CHRISTOPHER N. // North Carolina Law Review;Dec2013, Vol. 92 Issue 1, p149 

    With the number of immigrant deportations setting new records, attention has focused largely on states like Arizona and Alabama, which seem to be competing to pass the harshest anti-immigrant state law provisions. Yet laws like those at issue in Arizona v. United States, seeking to augment or...

  • Perpetual Congressional Inaction: State Regulation of Immigration in Response to Lack of Reform. GALLOWAY, BENJAMIN D. // Mercer Law Review;Spring2014, Vol. 65 Issue 3, p795 

    The author discusses state regulation of immigration in response to lack of reform by the U.S. Congress. Topics discussed include analyzing the development of immigration law considering the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Arizona v. United States, power for the states to regulate immigrants...

  • The New Immigration Federalism. ELIAS, STELLA BURCH // Ohio State Law Journal;2013, Vol. 74 Issue 5, p703 

    The Supreme Court's recent rulings in Arizona v. United States (2012) and Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting (2011) mark a watershed in immigration law and doctrine. Because the Supreme Court held that state and local indirect enforcement measures are no longer permissible, some scholars have argued...

  • RECENTERING FOREIGN AFFAIRS PREEMPTION IN ARIZONA V. UNITED STATES: FEDERAL PLENARY POWER, THE SPHERES OF GOVERNMENT, AND THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF S.B. 1070. CHARLES, PATRICK J. // Cleveland State Law Review;2013, Vol. 61 Issue 1, p133 

    The article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court case Arizona v. United States, a foreign affairs preemption case concerning immigration. Topics discussed include Arizona's Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act; foreign affaires preemption within immigration law, and different court...

  • Reverse-Commandeering. Hu, Margaret // U.C. Davis Law Review;Dec2012, Vol. 46 Issue 2, p535 

    Although the anti-commandeering doctrine was developed by the Supreme Court to protect state sovereignty from federal overreach, nothing prohibits flipping the doctrine in the opposite direction to protect federal sovereignty from state overreach. Federalism preserves a balance of power between...

  • The Right to Travel: Breaking Down the Thousand Petty-Fortresses of State Self-Deportation Laws. Chan, R. Linus // Pace Law Review;Spring2014, Vol. 34 Issue 2, p814 

    The article discusses a right to travel in America in relation to various state self-deportation laws in the U.S., focusing on the Alabama's House of Representatives' passage of the anti-illegal alien legislative bill 56 (H.B. 56). Ordinances and laws dealing with undocumented workers in...

Share

Read the Article

Courtesy of THE LIBRARY OF VIRGINIA

Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics