## Facts

- In 2011, Alabama enacted H.B. 56 (codified largely at Ala. Code § 31-13-1 et seq.), a wide-ranging state law aimed at discouraging unlawful immigration and increasing state involvement in immigration enforcement.
- The law used multiple tools, including creating new state crimes tied to immigration status, requiring immigration-status inquiries by law enforcement (and in certain school-related contexts), restricting access to state licenses, and limiting state-court enforcement of contracts involving unlawfully present noncitizens.
- The United States sued Alabama and state officials in federal district court, alleging that key provisions invaded an area reserved to the federal government and were preempted under the Supremacy Clause.
- The United States sought a preliminary injunction to stop enforcement while the case proceeded on the merits.
- The district court granted preliminary relief as to some provisions and denied it as to others, resulting in both an appeal by the United States and a cross-appeal by Alabama.
- While the appeal was pending, the Supreme Court decided *Arizona v. United States* (2012), which guided the Eleventh Circuit’s preemption analysis of state immigration-enforcement measures.

## Issues

1. Whether provisions of H.B. 56 creating state immigration-related crimes and penalties were preempted because federal law occupies the field or because the state scheme conflicts with federal objectives.
2. Whether Alabama could criminalize conduct already regulated by federal immigration statutes (such as alien registration/document requirements, unauthorized work by noncitizens, and harboring/transporting/inducing unlawful presence).
3. Whether H.B. 56’s requirements that state officers attempt to determine a person’s immigration status during certain law-enforcement encounters were facially preempted.
4. Whether H.B. 56’s civil restrictions (including limits on contracts and access to certain state transactions or benefits based on immigration status) conflicted with the federal government’s control over immigration and alien regulation.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed and expanded preliminary injunctive relief against several H.B. 56 provisions that imposed state criminal or civil consequences tied to immigration status in areas governed by federal law.
- Consistent with *Arizona v. United States*, the court held that Alabama could not impose state criminal penalties for conduct covered by the federal alien-registration scheme, and it upheld an injunction against H.B. 56’s state offense tied to failure to carry federal registration documents.
- The court also held preempted provisions that criminalized certain unauthorized-work conduct by unlawfully present noncitizens, reasoning that Congress—through IRCA—set a federal balance that does not generally make the worker a target of state criminal sanctions.
- The court held that Alabama’s state harboring/transporting/inducing provision was facially preempted, because federal law already regulates that area and state penalties risk interfering with federal charging choices and enforcement priorities.
- By contrast, the court allowed Alabama’s status-check requirement (analogous to Arizona’s § 2(B)) to take effect on its face at the preliminary-injunction stage, while warning that it could still be invalid as applied if implemented in a way that prolongs detention or otherwise conflicts with federal law.
- The court addressed other civil-disability provisions (including contract and state-transaction limits) under the same preemption framework, upholding injunction relief where the provisions functioned as independent state immigration regulation rather than mere information-sharing.

## Legal Principles

- Federal immigration law can preempt state enactments by field preemption (where Congress has created an exclusive federal scheme) and by conflict/obstacle preemption (where state law interferes with federal objectives or methods).
- States generally may not create their own criminal enforcement regime for alien registration and documentation because Congress established a single national system and selected the penalties tied to it.
- Under IRCA, Congress made key choices about how to regulate unauthorized employment; state laws that impose criminal sanctions on unauthorized workers can conflict with that federal allocation of responsibility.
- State laws criminalizing harboring, transporting, or inducing unlawful presence may be preempted when they parallel federal prohibitions but add state enforcement and penalties that interfere with federal prosecutorial judgment and national uniformity.
- Information-sharing and immigration-status inquiries tied to lawful police activity are not necessarily preempted on their face, but they remain subject to limits: state enforcement may not detain individuals longer than otherwise permitted just to verify immigration status, and state measures may not operate as stand-alone immigration punishment.

## Conclusion

United States v. Alabama held that significant parts of Alabama’s H.B. 56 were likely preempted because they created state crimes and civil consequences in areas governed by federal immigration law, while a limited status-check requirement could proceed on its face under *Arizona v. United States*, subject to later challenges based on how it is applied.


United States v. Alabama, 691 F.3d 1269 (2012)