[Oceander]

It can't be a matter of preemption. First because the Arizona law doesn't create a competing immigration regime, all it does is direct that its officers enforce federal law - whatever that happens to be - and thus there are no substantive differences that might trigger preemption. Second, federal immigration law doesn't specify that only federal law-enforcement agencies are to enforce it, and one cannot draw the necessary inferences that would trigger procedural preemption. Contra all that nonsense, you have the provisions of Article VI of the Constitution that require that each and every state officer take an oath to support the Constitution - since the Constitution mandates that federal law is the supreme law of the land, "supporting" the Constitution necessarily entails supporting - and enforcing - federal law. QED, the thugs' lawsuit should be dismissed for failure to state a claim.

[Squantos]

A keeper ........thanks !

[circlecity]

I agree with your points and many have made similar observations. This is a weak case and there was no real reason to bring it beyond politics. Dismissal for failure to state a claim is interesting but it may be better to go straight to the injunction hearing, get a ruling on the merits,(either way) and move on up the judicial chain.

[spaced]

The Fed suit against Arizona is most definitely NOT about preemption. It’s political, plain and simple. If preemption were the problem, the Feds would go after the sanctuary cities, but they’re not. Of course, the fact that they have ignored pre-existing state/city laws that directly usurp federal law might present Arizona with a prong for their defense: precedent has existed for years.