## Facts

- California Labor Code § 2805(a) barred employers from knowingly employing an alien not entitled to lawful residence if the employment would adversely affect lawful resident workers.
- Lawful resident migrant farmworkers alleged farm labor contractors refused to continue employing them due to a labor surplus created by the contractors’ knowing employment of unauthorized aliens.
- The workers sought reinstatement and an injunction prohibiting willful employment of such unauthorized aliens under § 2805(a).
- A California trial court dismissed the complaint, holding § 2805(a) unconstitutional as intruding on federal immigration authority.
- A California intermediate appellate court affirmed, treating § 2805(a) as an impermissible state regulation of immigration.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether § 2805(a) is facially unconstitutional because it constitutes a state “regulation of immigration” committed exclusively to the federal government.
2. Whether § 2805(a) is preempted by the Immigration and Nationality Act under the Supremacy Clause, including field preemption.
3. Whether potential conflicts between § 2805(a) and federal law require further state-court construction and conflict-preemption analysis on remand.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously reversed and remanded.
- The Court held § 2805(a) is not, on its face, an unconstitutional “regulation of immigration.”
- The Court held the statute is not field-preempted by the Immigration and Nationality Act.
- The Court remanded for California courts to construe § 2805(a) and then decide in the first instance whether particular applications conflict with federal law.

## Legal Principles

- “Regulation of immigration” means determining who may be admitted to the country and the conditions under which a legal entrant may remain; a state law is not such a regulation merely because it concerns aliens.
- States may regulate employment relationships under their police powers to protect workers, so long as the regulation is consistent with applicable federal law.
- Field preemption is not inferred lightly; it requires that the nature of the subject permits no other conclusion, or that Congress has unmistakably ordained exclusive federal control.
- A comprehensive federal immigration scheme does not automatically occupy the field of employment regulation affecting unauthorized aliens absent clear congressional intent.
- Even when a state statute survives a facial preemption challenge, it may still be invalid in specific applications if it conflicts with federal statutes, regulations, or objectives (conflict preemption).

## Conclusion

The Court upheld California’s authority to regulate the knowing employment of unauthorized aliens when aimed at protecting lawful resident workers, rejecting facial invalidity and field preemption, while leaving possible conflict-preemption questions to be resolved after state-court construction on remand.


De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351 (1976)