He doesn’t need to read the law!
” or do things that contravene federal policy”
The “federal policy” is to ignore the federal law, therefore,,,,,,,,,,
According to the radical Holder yeah.
But
"The lawsuit goes on to say that a "state may not establish its own immigration policy or enforce state laws in a manner that interferes with the federal immigration laws. The Constitution and the federal immigration laws do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country."
Backers of the law say that Arizona will have some strong arguments in its favor in fighting the lawsuit.
Kris Kobach, the University of Missouri-Kansas City law professor who helped draft the Arizona law, has said the state law is only prohibiting conduct already illegal under federal law. And Harvard Law School professor Gerald Neuman believes Arizona could make a compelling legal argument that it has overlapping authority to protect its residents.
But courts have ruled that under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, any state law that conflicts with a federal law is pre-empted. Federal law, the framers said, "shall be the supreme law of the land.""
Umm USNews. The AZ law does not conflict with the Federal law it enforces the Fed law as well as complement it. Your interjected interpretation that the court's basis of argument of the two laws are conflictual under the 'Supremacy Clause' is erroneous.