Replies

"But Arizona has not established a policy on immigration separate from that of the US. It has established the policy of discouraging those who have been determined to be in the US unlawfully according to Federal policy. "

First, thanks for the link. Second, let me preface this by saying I don't necessarily agree or disagree with Noonan here. I have only skimmed the entire opinion and his concurrence specifically, but I think the point he's making is this...

Irrespective of the fact that Arizona endeavored to craft a policy that may be identical to federal policy, Noonan opines that it's not their prerogative to craft any policy as it specifically relates to immigration. I have a feeling that this argument will find favor with more than a few Supreme Court Justices.

I also was intrigued with Noonan's citation of Am. Ins. Ass’n v. Garamendi, 539 U.S. 396 (2003). I wasn't familiar with that case, but it is on point and instructive with respect to the "federal foreign policy" argument Noonan makes.

It will be interest to read what other conservative scholars have to say, but my initial personal reaction is AZ might be swimming against the current here. We'll see.

Noonan's argument seems to be that, in particular, because it's national security, it cannot be a state function. I don't think this follows from the US Constitution. The militia, and their follow-on the national guard is a state function. It is very much involved with security, which is the whole point, as the Constitution states.

The issue is not about the relationship between the states and foreign powers, but the right of a state to be secure from threats recognized by the Federal government as threats.