Summaryjudgment 092713

7/27/2019 Summaryjudgment 092713

1/60

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

I N THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT

FOR THE DI STRI CT OF ARI ZONA

We Are Amer i ca, et al., ))

Pl ai nt i f f s, ) No. CI V 06- 2816- PHX- RCB

)vs. ) O R D E R)

Mar i copa Count y Boar d of )Super vi sor s, et al. )

)Def endant s. )

)

Introduction

I n 2005, t he Ar i zona St at e Legi sl at ur e cr i mi nal i zed human

smuggl i ng. See Ar i z. Rev. St at . ( A. R. S. ) 13- 2319.

Ther eaf t er , t he Mar i copa Count y At t or ney s Of f i ce ( MCAO)

i nt er pr et ed t hat human smuggl i ng st at ut e, i n combi nat i on wi t h

Ar i zona s conspi r acy st at ut es, as gi vi ng i t t he pr osecut or i al

di scr et i on t o char ge and pr osecut e non- smuggl i ng mi gr ant s f or

conspi r i ng t o t r anspor t t hemsel ves wi t hi n Mar i copa Count y.

Accor di ngl y, t he Mar i copa Count y Sher i f f s Of f i ce ( MCSO) began

ar r est i ng and det ai ni ng mi gr ant s f or t hat cr i me. Thi s l awsui t

i s a di r ect chal l enge t o t he f or egoi ng, whi ch t he par t i es r ef er

t o, as wi l l t he cour t , as t he Mar i copa Mi gr ant Conspi r acy Pol i cy

( t he Pol i cy) .

Cur r ent l y pendi ng bef or e t he cour t ar e def endant s ( Doc.

Case 2:06-cv-02816-RCB Document 137 Filed 09/27/13 Page 1 of 60


2/60

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 Gi ven t he cour t s i nt i mat e f ami l i ar i t y wi t h t hi s act i on and

because t he i ssues have been f ul l y br i ef ed, i n i t s di scr et i on t he cour tdeni es t he par t i es r equest f or or al ar gument as i t woul d not ai d t hedeci si onal pr ocess. See Fed. R. Ci v. P. 78( b) ; Par t r i dge v. Rei ch, 141 F. 3d920, 926 ( 9t h Ci r . 1998) .

2 Thi s cour t previ ousl y deni ed pl ai nt i f f s f i r st mot i on f or cl asscert i f i cat i on wi t hout prej udi ce t o r enew. We Ar e Ameri ca/ Somos Amer i caCoal i t i on of Ar i zona v. Mar i copa Co. Bd. of Supervi sor s, 2007 WL 2775134,at * 8 ( D. Ar i z. Sept . 21, 2007) ( WAA/ SACA I ) .

- 2 -

119) and pl ai nt i f f s ( Doc. 121) compet i ng mot i ons f or summar y

j udgment pur suant t o Fed. R. Ci v. P. 56. The pr i mar y i ssue whi ch

t hese summary j udgment mot i ons r ai se i s whet her f ederal l aw

pr eempt s and r ender s i nval i d t he Pol i cy.1

The pl ai nt i f f s second mot i on f or cl ass cer t i f i cat i on pur suant t o Fed. R. Ci v. P.

23 ( Doc. 122) 2 i s al so cur r ent l y pendi ng bef or e t he cour t .

Background

An exami nat i on of t he par t i es st at ement s of f act s and

cont r over t i ng st at ement s of f act s, r eveal s t hat t her e i s l i t t l e

compl et e agr eement bet ween t hem. Most of t he par t i es

obj ect i ons ar e not wel l - t aken t hough; and t hey obf uscat e r at her

t han shar pen t he f act ual r ecor d.

A cour t may onl y consi der admi ssi bl e evi dence i n r ul i ng on

a mot i on f or summary j udgment . Bal l en v. Ci t y of Redmond, 466

F. 3d 736, 745 ( 9t h Ci r . 2006) ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) . However ,

obj ect i ons t o evi dence . . . [ as] i r r el evant , specul at i ve,

and/ or ar gument at i ve, or t hat i t const i t ut es an i mpr oper l egal

concl usi on ar e al l dupl i cat i ve of t he summar y j udgment st andar d

i t sel f . Har r i s Techni cal Sal es, I nc. v. Eagl e Test Sys. , I nc. ,

2008 WL 343260, at *3 ( D. Ar i z. Feb. 5, 2008) ( quot i ng Bur ch v.

Regent s of t he Uni v. of Cal . , 433 F. Supp. 2d 1110, 1120 ( E. D. Cal .



3/60

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3 For uni f or mi t y and ease of r ef er ence, al l ci t at i ons t o pagenumbers of docket ed i t ems ar e t o t he page assi gned by t he cour t s casemanagement and el ect r oni c case f i l i ng ( CM/ ECF) syst em.

- 3 -

2006) ) . Many of t he par t i es obj ect i ons ar e t o r el evancy. Such

obj ect i ons ar e r edundant t hough because a cour t cannot

r el y on i r r el evant f act s[ ] i n awar di ng summar y j udgment .

Huynh v. J . P. Mor gan Chase & Co. , 2008 WL 2789532, at *4( D. Ar i z. J ul y 17, 2008) ( quot i ng Bur ch, 433 F. Supp. 2d at 1119) .

A cour t can awar d summar y j udgment onl y when t her e i s no

genui ne di sput e of material f act . I d. ( quot i ng Bur ch, 433

F. Supp. 2d at 1119) ( emphasi s i n or i gi nal ) ) .

Ot her obj ect i ons are that t he pr of f er ed evi dence i s

ar gument at i ve or const i t ut es an i mpr oper l egal concl usi on.

These t ypes of obj ect i ons ar e super f l uous i n t hi s cont ext ,

however , because such st at ement s ar e not f act s and l i kewi se

wi l l not be consi der ed on a mot i on f or summar y j udgment . I d.

( quot i ng Bur ch, 433 F. Supp. 2d at 1119 ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) ) .

Thus, i nsof ar as t he par t i es obj ect i ons ar e dupl i cat i ve of t he

summary j udgment st andar d, t he cour t sees no need t o expr essl y

r ul e on each.

Ther e ar e t wo obj ect i ons whi ch mer i t speci f i c

consi der at i on, however . The def endant s ar e obj ect i ng t o t he

pl ai nt i f f s second st at ement of f act whi ch, i n t ur n, i s based

upon a document ent i t l ed [ Cr i mi nal J ust i ce- Sher i f f - Human

Smuggl i ng Enf orcement ] Opi ni on No. 2005- 002[ , ] dated Sept ember

29, 2005. Pl s. Exh. 5 ( Doc. 121- 2) at 213- 219. 3 Thi s unsi gned

document pur por t s t o be a l et t er f r om f or mer Mar i copa Count y

At t orney Andr ew P. Thomas t o def endant Sher i f f J oseph M. Ar pai o.



4/60

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

See i d. Based upon t hi s l et t er , t he pl ai nt i f f s of f er t he

f ol l owi ng st at ement of f act [ : ] On Sept ember 29, 2005, [ t he

t hen] def endant Count y At t or ney announced t hat hi s of f i ce woul d

pr osecut e not onl y act ual coyotes, but al so non- smuggl ermi gr ant s peopl e who ar e t r yi ng t o ent er i nt o t hi s count r y

and whom, i n t he l egi sl at ur e s vi ew, act ual smuggl er s expl oi t

who agr ee t o pay f or t hei r own t r anspor t on t he t heory t hat

such mi gr ant s have conspi r ed t o vi ol at e 13- 2319. Pl ai nt i f f s

St at ement of Fact s i n Suppor t of Mot i on f or Summary J udgment

( Pl s. SOF) ( Doc. 121- 1) at 3: 16- 21 ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . The

pl ai nt i f f s al so r el y upon t he Sept ember 29, 2005, document as

t he sour ce of t he Pol i cy. See i d. at 3: 24- 25 ( Thi s [ opi ni on

l et t er ] i ni t i at ed t he . . . MMCP at i ssue[ . ] )

Obj ect i ng t o t hi s st at ement of f act , and t he pr edi cat e

document , t he def endant s asser t t hat t he l at t er l acks f oundat i on

because i t i s unsi gned. The def endant s f ur t her asser t t hat t hat

unsi gned document cannot serve as an admi ssi on by a par t y

opponent [ ] i n t he absence of any t est i mony by ei t her i t s

supposed aut hor , non- par t y Thomas, or i t s al l eged r eci pi ent ,

def endant Ar pai o. Def endant s Response t o Pl ai nt i f f s St at ement

of Fact s i n Suppor t of Pl ai nt i f f s Mot i on f or Summar y J udgment

and Cont r over t i ng St at ement of Fact s ( Def s. Resp. SOF) ( Doc.

129) at 3: 13- 14, 2.

Document ar y evi dence submi t t ed on a summar y j udgment

mot i on must be aut hent i cat ed and at t ached t o a decl ar at i on

wher ei n t he decl ar ant i s t he per son t hr ough whom t he exhi bi t s

coul d be admi t t ed i nt o evi dence. Bi as v. Moyni han, 508 F. 3d

1212, 1224 ( 9t h Ci r . 2007) ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) ; see al so Or r v.



5/60

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 -

Bank of Amer i ca, 285 F. 3d 764, 773 ( 9t h Ci r . 2002) ( ci t at i ons

and f oot not e omi t t ed) ( Aut hent i cat i on i s a condi t i on pr ecedent

t o admi ssi bi l i t y and unaut hent i cated document s cannot be

consi dered i n a mot i on f or summary j udgment . ) The Ni nt hCi r cui t has r epeat edl y hel d t hat unaut hent i cat ed document s

cannot be consi dered i n a mot i on f or summary j udgment . Or r ,

285 F. 3d at 773. Thi s aut hent i cat i on r equi r ement i s sat i sf i ed

by evi dence suf f i ci ent t o suppor t a f i ndi ng t hat t he mat t er i n

quest i on i s what i t s pr oponent cl ai ms[ , ] Fed. R. Evi d. 901( a) ,

or i f t he document i s sel f - aut hent i cat i ng pur suant t o

Fed. R. Evi d. 902. The pl ai nt i f f s have shown nei t her . Ther ef or e,

t he cour t wi l l not consi der t he unsi gned Sept ember 29, 2005,

l et t er due t o a l ack of f oundat i on.

For subst ant i al l y si mi l ar r easons, t he cour t al so wi l l not

consi der what pur por t s t o be Mi nut es of t he Commi t t ee on

J udi ci ar y r e: H. B. 2539, Ar i zona House of Represent at i ves, 47t h

Legi sl at ur e, Fi r st Regul ar Sessi on ( Febr uar y 10, 2005) . Pl s.

SOF ( Doc. 121- 1) at 3: 14- 17. At t empt i ng t o show l egi sl at i ve

i nt ent , t he pl ai nt i f f s r eci t e f r omt hese Mi nut es sever al t i mes.

The Mi nut es t hemsel ves ar e not par t of t he r ecor d, however ; nor

have t hey been aut hent i cat ed i n any way.

Not wi t hst andi ng t he par t i es obj ect i ons, at bot t om, t he

undi sput ed f act s per t ai ni ng t o t he pendi ng summary j udgment

mot i ons ar e st r ai ght f or war d and f ew. I n 2005, Ar i zona

cr i mi nal i zed human smuggl i ng, maki ng i t a cl ass 4 f el ony f or a

per son t o i nt ent i onal l y engage i n t he smuggl i ng of human bei ngs

f or pr of i t or commer ci al pur pose. A. R. S. 13- 2319( A) - ( C) ( 1) -



6/60

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4 Sect i on 132319 was amended by sect i on f our of Suppor t Our LawEnf or cement and Saf e Nei ghbor hoods Act , as amended by H. B. 2162 ( S. B.1070) . That amendment , whi ch i s not r el evant here, made onl y a mi norchange t o Ar i zona s pr eexi st i ng human smuggl i ng st at ut e, i . e. , sect i on132319[ , ] and di d not af f ect i t s subst ant i ve scope. See We Ar e Am. / SomosAm. , Coal . of Ar i z. v. Mar i copa Cnt y. Bd. of Super vi sor s, 809 F. Supp. 2d1084, 1086 n. 1 (D. Ar i z. 2011) ( WAA/ SACA I V) ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) .

- 6 -

( 2) ( Supp. 2010) 4. The st at ut or y def i ni t i on of [ s] muggl i ng of

human bei ngs i s t r anspor t at i on, pr ocur ement of t r anspor t at i on

or use of pr oper t y or r eal pr oper t y by a per son or an ent i t y

t hat knows or has r eason t o know t hat t he person or personst r anspor t ed or t o be t r anspor t ed ar e not Uni t ed St at es ci t i zens,

per manent r esi dent al i ens or per sons ot her wi se l awf ul l y i n t hi s

st at e or have at t empt ed t o ent er , ent er ed or r emai ned i n t he

Uni t ed St at es i n vi ol at i on of l aw. A. R. S. 132319( F) ( 3) .

Si gni f i cant l y, t he def endant s do not di sput e ei t her t he

exi st ence of t he Pol i cy or i t s i mpl ement at i on. I ndeed, t hey

expr essl y acknowl edge t hat [ s] i nce March of 2006, t he [ MCAO]

has r eser ved t he pr osecut or i al di scr et i on under Ar i zona l aw t o

char ge and pr osecut e per sons f or t he st at e cr i me of conspi r acy

under A. R. S. 13- 1003 t o vi ol at e Ar i zona s human smuggl i ng

st at ut e, A. R. S. 13- 2319. Def endant s Mot i on f or Summar y

J udgment ( Def s. SJ M) ( Doc. 119) at 1: 27- 2: 2. Al ong t hose

same l i nes, t he def endant s f ur t her acknowl edge t hat t he MCSO

al so enf or ces 13- 1003 as appl i ed t o 13- 2319 by ar r est i ng

i ndi vi dual s f or , and det ai ni ng t hem under , t he cr i mi nal char ge

of conspi r i ng t o vi ol at e Ar i zona s human smuggl i ng st at ut e when

pr obabl e cause exi st s t o do so. I d. at 2: 5- 7. Def endant s al so

poi nt out t hat A. R. S. 13- 1006( B) r ecogni zes t hat a per son may



7/60

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5 That st at ut e provi des as f ol l ows:

I t i s not a def ense t o a pr osecut i on f orsol i ci t at i on or conspi r acy t hat t he def endanti s, by def i ni t i on of t he of f ense, l egal l yi ncapabl e i n an i ndi vi dual capaci t y of commi t t i ngt he of f ense t hat i s t he obj ect of t he sol i ci t at i onor conspi r acy.

A. R. S. 13- 1006( B) .

- 7 -

commi t conspi r acy t o commi t an of f ense, even i f t hat person

cannot be convi ct ed of t he of f ense i t sel f . 5

By J une 2011, i n accor dance wi t h t he Pol i cy, MCSO deput i es

had ar r est ed at l east 1, 800 non- smuggl er s f or conspi r i ng t ovi ol at e 13- 2319. Pl s. SOF ( Doc. 121- 1) at 3, 3 ( ci t at i ons

omi t t ed) ; see al so Def s. Resp. SOF ( Doc. 129) at 3, 3

( admi t ) . And, [ a] s of Mar ch 2010, t he [ MCAO] had pr osecut ed

1, 357 non- smuggl er s f or conspi r acy t o vi ol at e 13- 2319. I d.

at 4, 4 ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) ; see al so Def s. Resp. SOF ( Doc.

129) at 4, 4 ( admi t ) . At hi s August 23, 2012, deposi t i on,

Mar i copa Count y Sher i f f Ar pai o conf i r med t hat t he MCSO i s

cont i nui ng t o ar r est co- conspi r at or s and t hat t he MCAO

cont i nues t o pr osecut e t hem. Pl s. Exh. 1 ( Doc. 121- 2) at 36: 5-

10.

The Fi r st Amended Compl ai nt ( FAC) al l eges f our separ at e

causes of act i on. Si gni f i cant l y however , bel i evi ng t hey ar e

cl ear l y ent i t l ed t o summar y j udgment on t hei r f i r st cl ai mf or

r el i ef ( pr eempt i on) [ , ] the pl ai nt i f f s ar e reced[ i ng] f r om

t hei r r emai ni ng [ t hr ee] cl ai ms[ . ] Pl ai nt i f f s Responsi ve

Memorandum i n Opposi t i on t o Def endant s Mot i on f or Summary

J udgment ( Pl s. Resp. ) ( Doc. 126) at 16: 27- 28, n. 5. Thi s

obvi at es t he need t o consi der much of t he def endant s summary



8/60

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6 I n We Ar e Amer i ca/ Somos Amer i ca Coal i t i on of Ar i zona v. Mar i copaCo. Bd. of Supervi sor s, 594 F. Supp. 2d 1104 (D. Ar i z. 2009) ( We Ar e Amer i ca

I I ) , based upon Younger abst ent i on, t hi s cour t hel d t hat i t l ackedj ur i sdi ct i on t o consi der t he cl ai ms of t he si x Mexi can Nat i onal s ahol di ng whi ch t he Ni nth Ci r cui t af f i r med. We Ar e Amer i ca/ Somos Amer i caCoal i t i on of Ar i zona v. Mar i copa Co. Bd. of Super vi sors, 386 Fed. Appx. 726,727 (9t h Ci r . 2010) .

7 The FAC s capt i on accurat el y names Davi d Luj an as a pl ai nt i f f ,but l at er i t i ncor r ect l y r ef er s t o hi m as St eve Luj an Compar e FAC( Doc. 45) at 1: 23 wi t h FAC ( Doc. 45) at 8: 13, 13. Despi t e thi smi si dent i f i cat i on, i t i s cl ear t hat Davi d Luj an and St eve Luj an ar e t hesame pl ai nt i f f .

- 8 -

j udgment mot i on, whi ch addr essed al l f our cl ai ms. What r emai ns,

as ment i oned at t he out set , i s t he vi gor ousl y di sput ed i ssue of

f eder al pr eempt i on. The par t i es each ar gue t hei r ent i t l ement

t o summary j udgment on t hi s i ssue. The def endant s argue t hatt he Pol i cy i s not pr eempt ed by f eder al i mmi gr at i on l aw, wher eas

t he pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat i t i s pr eempt ed. Addi t i onal l y, t he

pl ai nt i f f s ar e seeki ng cer t i f i cat i on of t wo al t er nat i ve cl asses,

as mor e f ul l y di scussed her ei n.

Discussion

Br i ngi ng a cl ass cer t i f i cat i on mot i on t oget her wi t h a Rul e

56 mot i on[ , ] as t he pl ai nt i f f s have done, i s consi st ent wi t h

t he Feder al Rul es of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e. See Evon v. Law Of f i ces

of Si dney Mi ckel l , 688 F. 3d 1015, 1032 ( 9t h Ci r . 2012) ( ci t i ng

cases) . At t he out set , t hough, t he cour t must det er mi ne whi ch

mot i on t o r esol ve f i r st . I n t hei r summar y j udgment mot i on, t he

def endant s argue, inter alia, t hat each of t he remai ni ng named

pl ai nt i f f s6 l ack st andi ng t o br i ng t hi s sui t f or equi t abl e

r el i ef . Def s. SJ M ( Doc. 119) at 15: 17. Si mi l ar l y, i n

opposi ng cl ass cer t i f i cat i on, t he def endant s al so ar gue t hat t he

t wo muni ci pal t axpayer pl ai nt i f f s, Dawn Hagl und and Davi d7



9/60

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 9 -

Luj an, l ack st andi ng.

I f t he def endant s ar e cor r ect , and none of t he pl ai nt i f f s

have st andi ng, t hen t hi s cour t woul d not have subj ect mat t er t o

consi der t he mer i t s, i ncl udi ng cl ass cer t i f i cat i on. SeeRi ghthaven LLC v. Hoehn, 716 F. 3d 1166, 1172 ( 9t h Ci r . 2013)

( I n t he absence of st andi ng, a f eder al cour t l acks subj ect

mat t er j ur i sdi ct i on over t he sui t . ) ( quot i ng Cet acean Cmt y.

v. Bush, 386 F. 3d 1169, 1174 ( 9t h Ci r . 2004) ( ci t i ng St eel Co.

v. Ci t i zens f or a Bet t er Env t , 523 U. S. 83, 101, 118 S. Ct .

1003, 140 L. Ed. 2d 210 ( 1998) ) . Ther ef or e, t he cour t wi l l f i r st

addr ess t he par t i es summary j udgment mot i ons. See Tech v.

U. S. , 271 F. R. D. 451, 454 ( M. D. Pa. 2010) ( [ p] r i or t o r ender i ng

a di sposi t i on on t he Pl ai nt i f f s cl ass cer t i f i cat i on mot i on,

[ t he cour t ] f i r st consi der [ ed] t he Uni t ed St at es [ ] mot i on t o

di smi ss . . . f or l ack of subj ect mat t er j ur i sdi ct i on . . . ,

asser t i ng t hat Tech l acks st andi ng[ ] ) ; cf . Evon, 688 F. 3d at

1032 ( Whi l e Rul e 23 does not r equi r e a di st r i ct cour t t o f ul l y

consi der t he mer i t s of t he pl ai nt i f f s cl ai ms, addr essi ng t he

mer i t s of t he cl ai ms i n a rel at ed summary j udgment mot i on can

have a subst ant i al bear i ng on t he r equi r ed Rul e 23

det er mi nat i ons. )

I. Summary Judgment Motions

The cour t assumes f ami l i ar i t y wi t h what has somet i mes been

r ef er r ed t o as t he Cel ot ex t r i l ogy wher ei n t he Supr eme Cour t

cl ar i f i ed and r ef i ned t he st andar ds f or deci di ng Rul e 56 summar y

j udgment mot i ons. See Ander son v. Li ber t y Lobby, I nc. , 477 U. S.

242, 106 S. Ct . 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 ( 1986) ; Cel ot ex Cor p. v.

Cat r et t , 477 U. S. 317, 106 S. Ct . 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 ( 1986) ;



10/60

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 10 -

and Mat sushi t a El ec. I ndust r . Co. v. Zeni t h Radi o Cor p. , 475

U. S. 574, 106 S. Ct . 1348, 89 L. Ed. 2d 538 ( 1986) . Ther e i s no

need t o repeat t he ent i r e body of summary j udgment case l aw

whi ch has devel oped si nce t hen. That i s especi al l y so gi vent hat t her e ar e no mat er i al f act s i n di sput e and t he pendi ng

mot i ons t ur n on l egal i ssues, maki ng t hempr oper f or r esol ut i on

pur suant t o Fed. R. Ci v. P. 56. See Li ber t y Lobby, 477 U. S. , at

250.

The summar y j udgment st andar ds do not change when t he

par t i es f i l e cross- mot i ons f or summar y j udgment : t he cour t must

appl y t he same st andard and r ul e on each mot i on i ndependent l y

because t he gr ant i ng of one mot i on does not necessar i l y

t r ansl at e i nt o t he deni al of t he ot her unl ess[ , ] as her e, t he

par t i es r el y on t he same l egal t heor i es and same set of mat er i al

f act s. See Feezor v. Excel St ockt on, LLC, 2013 WL 2485623, at

*2 ( E. D. Cal . J une 10, 2013) ( ci t i ng Pi nt os v. Pac. Cr edi t or s

Ass n. , 605 F. 3d 665, 674 ( 9t h Ci r . 2010) , cert. denied sub nom.

Exper i an I nf o. Sol ut i ons, I nc. v. Pi nt os, 562 U. S. , 131

S. Ct . 900 ( 2011) ) .

A. Standing

Def endant s asser t t hat a par t y s st andi ng i s a f undament al

threshold i nqui r y[ , ] whi l e si mul t aneousl y asser t i ng t hat

pl ai nt i f f s l ack of standi ng i s a final r eason f or gr ant i ng

summar y j udgment . Def s. SJ M ( Doc. 119) at 15: 16 ( ci t at i on

omi t t ed) ( emphasi s added) . I f t he pl ai nt i f f s l ack st andi ng

t hen, as pr evi ousl y expl ai ned, t hi s cour t woul d l ack subj ect

mat t er j ur i sdi ct i on. Ther ef or e, even t hough l ack of st andi ng

i s t he def endant s l ast asser t ed basi s f or seeki ng summar y



11/60

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8

Thi s cour t al so f ound t hat t he FAC adequat el y al l egedor gani zat i onal st andi ng as t o pl ai nt i f f Fr i endl y House. Si nce t hen,however , t he par t i es have st i pul at ed t o t he di smi ssal of Fr i endl y House andot her s, l eavi ng onl y t wo or gani zat i onal pl ai nt i f f s. See Or d. ( Doc. 109) at2.

9 Thi s cour t previ ousl y al so f ound t hat t he FAC adequat el y al l egedmuni ci pal t axpayer st andi ng as t o pl ai nt i f f s Kyr st en Si nema and Ceci l i aMenj i var . Si nce t hen, however , t he par t i es have st i pul at ed t o t hei rdi smi ssal , l eavi ng Hagl und and Luj an as t he muni ci pal t axpayer pl ai nt i f f s.See Or d. ( Doc. 109) at 2.

- 11 -

j udgment , t he cour t must addr ess t hat ar gument f i r st .

Ear l i er i n t hi s l i t i gat i on t he def endant s br ought a

st r i ct l y f aci al [ ] chal l enge t o st andi ng, ar gui ng f or di smi ssal

pur suant t o Fed. R. Ci v. P. 12( b) ( 1) . WAA/ SACA I V, 809F. Supp. 2d at 1089 and n. 4. Denyi ng t hat mot i on, t hi s cour t

f ound t hat t he pl ai nt i f f s had suf f i ci ent l y al l eged

organi zat i onal st andi ng as t o We Ar e Amer i ca/ Somos Amer i ca

Coal i t i on of Ar i zona ( WAA/ SACA) and t he Amer i can Hi spani c

Communi t y For um( AHCF) , 8 and muni ci pal t axpayer st andi ng as t o

pl ai nt i f f s Davi d Luj an and LaDawn Hagl und. 9

Now, however , t he st andi ng i ssue i s bef or e t he cour t i n a

di f f erent pr ocedur al post ur e - on a summary j udgment mot i on.

Essent i al l y t he def endant s ar e ar gui ng t hat t he pl ai nt i f f s

evi dence i s i nsuf f i ci ent t o conf er st andi ng upon any of t hem

because t hei r gr i evances ar e t oo gener al t o est abl i sh t he

requi s i t e Ar t i cl e I I I i nj ury i n f act . The pl ai nt i f f s ret or t

t hat t he uncont r over t ed evi dence est abl i shes bot h

or gani zat i onal and t axpayer pl ai nt i f f s st andi ng. Pl s. Resp.

( Doc. 126) at 8: 19- 20 ( emphasi s omi t t ed) .

Mer e al l egat i ons wer e suf f i ci ent t o est abl i sh st andi ng wi t h

r espect t o t he def endant s ear l i er mot i on t o di smi ss, but at



12/60

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

10 The cour t i ncor porat es by r ef er ence as i f f ul l y set f or t h herei ni t s di scussi on of t he gover ni ng st andi ng pr i nci pl es and ensui ng anal ysi s i nWAA/ SACA I V, 809 F. Supp. 2d at 1089- 1112.

- 12 -

t hi s j unct ur e mor e i s requi r ed. I n r esponse t o a summar y

j udgment mot i on . . . t o est abl i sh Ar t i cl e I I I st andi ng, a

pl ai nt i f f can no l onger r est on mer e al l egat i ons but must set

f or t h by af f i davi t or ot her admi ssi bl e evi dence speci f i c f act sas del i neat ed i n Feder al Rul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 56( e) as t o t he

exi st ence of such st andi ng. Ger l i nger v. Amazon. comI nc. , 526

F. 3d 1253, 1255- 1256 ( 9t h Ci r . 2008) ( quot i ng Luj an v. Def ender s

of Wi l dl i f e, 504 U. S. 555, 561, 112 S. Ct . 2130, 119 L. Ed. 2d 351

( 1992) ) .

1. Municipal Taxpayers10

[ I ] mpr oper expendi t ur e of publ i c f unds i s t he cr ux of

any cl ai mt hat a muni ci pal t axpayer sat i sf i es t he i nj ur y i n f act

pr ong of const i t ut i onal st andi ng[ , ] as f ul l y di scussed i n

WAA/ SACA I V, 809 F. Supp. 2d at 1108 ( ci t i ng Cammack v. Wai hee,

932 F. 2d 765, 770 ( 9t h Ci r . 1991) ) . As r ecent l y as 2008, t he

Ni nt h Ci r cui t has r eaf f i r med t hi s vi ew. I d. ( ci t i ng

BarnesWal l ace v. Ci t y of San Di ego, 530 F. 3d 776, 786 ( 9t h Ci r .

2008) . . . ( [ M] uni ci pal t axpayer s must show an expendi t ur e of

publ i c f unds t o have st andi ng. ) ) I n f act , t he pr emi se t hat an

unconst i t ut i onal expendi t ur e of gover nment f unds can i t sel f be

i nj ur y enough t o conf er muni ci pal - t axpayer st andi ng i s not

unr emar kabl e as a gener al pr oposi t i on. I d. ( quot i ng Smi t h

v. J ef f er son Count y Bd. of School Com r s, 641 F. 3d 197, 213 ( 6t h

Ci r . 2011) ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) ( Si xt h Ci r cui t not ed t hat i t s

si st er ci r cui t s[ , ] i ncl udi ng t he Ni nt h i n Cammack, al l agr ee



13/60

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

11 Because i t i s no l onger necessary to di st i ngui sh bet ween f eder al ,st at e and muni ci pal t axpayer s, her ei naf t er al l r ef er ences t o t axpayer sshal l be r ead as r ef er r i ng t o t he muni ci pal t axpayer pl ai nt i f f s.

- 13 -

wi t h t hat gener al pr oposi t i on) .

Succi nct l y put , Ar t i cl e I I I st andi ng compr i ses t hr ee

el ement s: ( 1) i nj ur y i n f act ; ( 2) causal connect i on; and

( 3) r edr essabi l i t y. See Bar numTi ber Co. v. U. S. Envi r onment alProt ect i on Agency, 633 F. 3d 894, 897 ( 9t h Ci r . 2011) . Gi ven

t hat t he def endant s are once agai n conf i ni ng t hei r ar gument t o

t he i nj ur y i n f act el ement , pr esumabl y t hey ar e concedi ng, as

t hi s cour t pr evi ousl y f ound, t hat t he muni ci pal t axpayer 11

pl ai nt i f f s have shown t he l at t er t wo st andi ng el ement s. See

WAA/ SACA I V, 809 F. Supp. 2d at 1105. The cour t wi l l conf i ne i t s

anal ysi s accor di ngl y.

The def endant s make t he bl anket asser t i on t hat muni ci pal

t axpayer pl ai nt i f f LaDawn Hagl und l acks st andi ng because her

i nj ur y . . . i s si mpl y a gener al i zed gr i evance t hat she does

not l i ke any t ax money, . . . , bei ng used f or gover nment al

deci si ons she di sagr ees wi t h as a mat t er of publ i c pol i cy, such

as t he Pol i cy. Def s. SJ M ( Doc. 119) at 16: 26- 17: 2 ( ci t at i on

omi t t ed) . Thi s i s t he sum t ot al of t he def endant s st andi ng

ar gument as t o pl ai nt i f f Hagl und. Over l ooki ng t he l ack of any

anal ysi s, t he cour t i s compel l ed t o comment upon t he l i ber t i es

whi ch t he def endant s have t aken i n descr i bi ng t he por t i on of

pl ai nt i f f Hagl und s deposi t i on t o whi ch t hey ci t e.

I n t hat sni ppet , pl ai nt i f f Hagl und was expl i ci t l y asked,

[ W] hat i s t he i nj ur y t o you because of t h[ i s] [ P] ol i cy[ ?]

Def s. Exh. C ( Doc. 120- 1) at 18: 5- 6. Di r ect l y r espondi ng,



14/60

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 14 -

pl ai nt i f f Hagl und st at ed, [ M] y t ax money i s bei ng used t o

house and pr osecut e and det ai n non- cr i mi nal s, i n my vi ew,

economi c mi gr ant s and t r eat i ng t hem as cr i mi nal s. I d. at

18: 13- 15. Descr i bi ng t hi s use of her t ax money as a mi suse i nmany ways[ , ] pl ai nt i f f Hagl und f ur t her t est i f i ed t hat gi ven t he

f eder al r ul es . . . f or deal i ng wi t h i mmi gr ant s, . . . usi ng

. . . my t ax dol l ar s t o pr osecut e economi c mi gr ant s det r act s

f r om pr osecut i ng r eal cri mi nal s. I d. at 18: 16- 20.

Thi s t est i mony cannot be r easonabl y i nt er pret ed t o support

def endant s char act er i zat i on t her eof . Pl ai nl y, t he f or egoi ng

does not show a generalizedgr i evance t hat [ pl ai nt i f f Hagl und]

does not l i ke anyt ax money . . . bei ng used f or governmental

decisions she disagrees with as a mat t er of publ i c pol i cy[ . ]

See Def s. SJ M ( Doc. 119) at 16: 27- 17: 1 ( ci t at i on omi t t ed)

( emphasi s added) . Rat her , pl ai nt i f f Hagl und r esponded t o a

nar r owl y t ai l or ed quest i on r egar di ng any i nj ur y t o her as a

r esul t of t he Pol i cy, and she r esponded accor di ngl y. She was

not asked about any government al deci si ons beyond t he Pol i cy.

Obvi ousl y t hen, t her e i s no way t o know f r om t he ci t ed

t est i mony how pl ai nt i f f Hagl und vi ews ot her gover nment al

deci si ons as t o t he expendi t ur e of her t ax dol l ar s. Even

assumi ng t he exi st ence of such t est i mony, i t woul d be

i r r el evant . Consequent l y, t he cour t gi ves no cr edence t o t he

def endant s depi ct i on of pl ai nt i f f Hagl und s t est i mony, whi ch

does not hi ng t o advance thei r ar gument t hat she l acks st andi ng.

Not onl y i s t her e no f act ual basi s f or t hat def ense

ar gument , but t her e i s no l egal basi s f or i t ei t her . As thi s

cour t pr evi ousl y f ound, t he muni ci pal t axpayer s suf f i ci ent l y



15/60

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 15 -

al l eged t he r equi si t e i nj ur y i n f act by al l egi ng t hei r st at us

as muni ci pal t axpayers and the i mpr oper expendi t ur e of muni ci pal

f unds. See WAA/ SACA I V, 809 F. Supp. 2d at 1104- 1109. The

pl ai nt i f f s evi dence of f er ed i n suppor t of t hei r summar yj udgment mot i on subst ant i at es t he FAC s al l egat i ons as t o

pl ai nt i f f Hagl und s st andi ng as a muni ci pal t axpayer .

Fi r st , pl ai nt i f f Hagl und s st at us as a Mar i copa Count y

t axpayer i s undi sput ed. Si nce 2005, she has been a Mar i copa

Count y r esi dent . See Pl s. Supp. Exh. 19 ( Doc. 126- 3) at 68: 11-

16. Fr om 2005 unt i l 2011, she owned r eal pr oper t y i n Mar i copa

Count y and pai d pr oper t y t axes t her eon. I d. at 68: 17- 23. I n

Oct ober 2011, pl ai nt i f f Hagl und began r ent i ng a house i n

Mar i copa Count y. I d. at 69: 6- 13. She i s char ged f or and pays

pr oper t y t axes and r ent on t hat r esi dence. I d. at 69: 14- 70: 14.

By st at ut e, such t axes are pai d t o t he t r easur y of Mar i copa

Count y whi ch shal l appor t i on and appl y the[ m] . . . t o t he

sever al speci al and gener al f unds as pr ovi ded by l aw. See

A. R. S. 11- 492.

I n addi t i on t o pr oper t y t axes, as a Mar i copa Count y

r esi dent , pl ai nt i f f Hagl und pays a speci al sal es t ax[ ] t he

J ai l Exci se Tax. See Pl s. Supp. Exh. 20 ( Doc. 126- 3) at 90;

see al so Pl s. Exh. 1 ( Doc. 121- 2) at 39: 15- 17 ( Def endant Ar pai o

t est i f i ed t hat t he oper at i ons of t he [ Count y] j ai l s come f r om

a t ax t hat was passed by t he peopl e of t hi s [ C] ount y sever al

year s ago[ ] a speci al budget [ . ] ) Thi s J ai l Exci se Tax i s

used t o f und const r uct i on and oper at i on of adul t and j uveni l e

det ent i on f aci l i t i es[ ] wher e def endant s det ai n, among ot her s,

t hose ar r est ed pur suant t o t he Pol i cy. See Pl s. Supp. Exh. 20



16/60

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 16 -

( Doc. 126- 3) at 90. I n f i scal year 2011, Mar i copa Count y

col l ect ed $112, 451, 802. 00. I d. Thi s Tax wi l l cont i nue unt i l

appr oxi mat el y 2027. See i d.

Besi des est abl i shi ng t hat pl ai nt i f f Hagl und i s a Mar i copaCount y t axpayer , t he evi dence bear s out t he FAC s al l egat i ons

t hat Count y f unds are bei ng expended t o carr y out t he Pol i cy.

Count y t axes, such as t hose pai d by pl ai nt i f f Hagl und, ar e used

f or a var i et y of MCSO s act i vi t i es r el at ed t o t he Pol i cy, as

def endant Ar pai o admi t s. As def endant Ar pai o admi t t ed, t hose

act i vi t i es i ncl ude: ( 1) t r ai ni ng MCSO deput i es t o det ect and

ar r est per sons who conspi r e t o t r anspor t t hemsel ves i n vi ol at i on

of A. R. S. 13- 2319[ ; ] ( 2) t r anspor t [ i ng] per sons ar r est ed f or

conspi r i ng t o t r anspor t t hemsel ves i n vi ol at i on of t hat

st at ut e; and ( 3) j ai l [ i ng] per sons ar r est ed f or conspi r i ng t o

t r anspor t t hemsel ves i n vi ol at i on of A. R. S. 13- 2319. Pl s.

Supp. Exh. 11 ( Doc. 126- 2) at 77: 12- 14, 63; 77: 16- 18, 64;

and 77: 9- 10, 62.

Count y t axes are l i kewi se bei ng expended by t he MCAO t o

car r y out t he Pol i cy, as def endant Mar i copa Count y At t or ney

Mont gomer y admi t s. The def endant Mar i copa Count y Board of

Super vi sor s appr opr i at es f unds f or t he oper at i ons of t he MCAO.

Pl s. Supp. Exh. exh. 12 ( Doc. 126- 2) at 93: 27- 94: 1, 72. The

MCAO, i n t ur n, spends t ax r evenues t o pr osecut e persons f or

conspi r i ng t o t r anspor t t hemsel ves i n vi ol at i on of A. R. S. 13-

2319[ , ] as wel l as f or t r ai ni ng per sonnel t o conduct such

pr osecut i ons, as def endant Mont gomer y al so admi t s. I d. at 93: 4-

10, 68- 69.

Fur t her more, t he def endant s concede that [ b] y J une 10,



17/60

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

12 Thi s f i gur e was der i ved by di vi di ng t he t ot al number of j ai l edadul t s i n f i scal year 2011 by t he t ot al spent f or det ai ni ng t hose adul t s.See Pl s. Cont r over t i ng SOF, exh. 18 t her et o (Doc. 126- 3) at 44.

- 17 -

2011, [ MCSO] deput i es had ar r est ed at l east 1, 800 non- smuggl ers

f or conspi r i ng t o vi ol at e 13- 2319[ ; ] and [ a] s of Mar ch 2010,

t he [ MCAO] had prosecut ed 1, 357 non- smuggl er s f or t hat same

cr i me. Pl s. SOF ( Doc. 121- 1) at 3: 26- 4: 7, 3 and 4( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) ; see al so Def s. Resp. SOF ( Doc. 129) at

3: 15- 16. I t cost s $91. 73 per day t o det ai n an i ndi vi dual i n t he

Mar i copa Count y j ai l . 12 Pl s. Supp. Exh. 18 ( Doc. 126- 3)

( Mar i copa Co. J ust i ce Syst em Annual Act i vi t i es Repor t FY 2011)

at 44. Thi s evi dence conf i r ms t he expendi t ur e of pl ai nt i f f

Hagl und s Count y t axes t o ar r est , det ai n, and pr osecut e

i ndi vi dual s pur suant t o t he Pol i cy.

I n shor t , pl ai nt i f f s evi dence f ul l y cor r obor at es t he FAC s

al l egat i ons t hat Ms. Hagl und i s a muni ci pal t axpayer , as wel l

as t he expendi t ur e of Mar i copa Count y t axes i n connect i on wi t h

t he Pol i cy. Ther e i s t hus no di sput e t hat she sat i sf i es t he

i nj ur y i n f act pr ong of muni ci pal t axpayer st andi ng t he onl y

el ement wi t h whi ch t he def endant s t ake i ssue. Cf . Page v. Tr i -

Ci t y Heal t hcar e Di st r i ct , 806 F. Supp. 2d 1154, 1165 ( S. D. Cal .

2012) ( no muni ci pal t axpayer st andi ng wher e pl ai nt i f f di d not

show[ ] an expendi t ur e of publ i c f unds[ ] and pr ovi ded no

evi dence i ndi cat i ng how much money had been spent r egardi ng t he

chal l enged conduct or where the f unds came f r om[ ] ) .

Tel l i ngl y, i n t he f ace of t hi s undi sput ed evi dence, t he

def endant s r epl y i s conspi cuousl y si l ent on t he i ssue of

st andi ng. The def endant s do not cont est pl ai nt i f f s evi dence



18/60

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 18 -

or l egal posi t i on i n any way. For al l of t hese r easons, t he

cour t f i nds t hat pl ai nt i f f Hagl und has st andi ng as a muni ci pal

t axpayer . Thus, t he cour t deni es t hi s aspect of def endant s

summar y j udgment mot i on.Ther e ar e no r eadi l y di scer ni bl e di f f er ences bet ween

t axpayer pl ai nt i f f s Hagl und and Luj an i n t er ms of t he evi dence

per t ai ni ng t o t hei r st andi ng. Pl ai nt i f f Luj an i s a Mar i copa

Count y r esi dent of l ongst andi ng and r egul ar l y pays t axes t o

Mar i copa Count y, i ncl udi ng, but not l i mi t ed t o, t he . . . J ai l

Exci se Tax[ . ] Pl s . Cont r over t i ng SOF ( Doc. 126- 3) , exh. 17

t her et o ( Luj an Decl n) at 191, 2. And, t he pl ai nt i f f s ar e

pr of f er i ng t he same undi sput ed evi dence out l i ned above t o

est abl i sh hi s st andi ng as a t axpayer . See Pl s. Resp. ( Doc.

126) at 9: 11- 10: 26. Despi t e t hat , t he def endant s,

i nconsi st ent l y, ar e not chal l engi ng pl ai nt i f f Luj an s st andi ng.

Nonet hel ess, t he evi dence whi ch suppor t s a f i ndi ng of t axpayer

st andi ng as t o pl ai nt i f f Hagl und suppor t s t he same f i ndi ng as

t o pl ai nt i f f Luj an. Thus, bot h t axpayer pl ai nt i f f s have

st andi ng t o pur sue t he pr eempt i on cl ai m. See Har o v. Sebel i us,

2013 WL 4734032, at *4 ( 9t h Ci r . Sept . 4, 2013) ( quot i ng

Dai ml er Chr ysl er Cor p. v. Cuno, 547 U. S. 332, 352, 126 S. Ct .

1854, 164 L. Ed. 2d 589 ( 2006) ) ( [ A] pl ai nt i f f must demonst r at e

st andi ng f or each cl ai m[ . ] )

[ S] t andi ng i s not di spensed i n gr oss[ , ] however . Lewi s

v. Casey, 518 U. S. 343, 358 n. 6, 116 S. Ct . 2174, 135 L. Ed. 2d

606 ( 1996) . Ther ef or e, t he cour t s i nqui r y cannot end her e.

I t al so must deci de whet her t he t axpayer pl ai nt i f f s have

st andi ng . . . f or each f or m of r el i ef sought . See Har o,



19/60

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 19 -

2013 WL 4734032, at *4 ( quot i ng Dai ml er Chr ysl er , 547 U. S. , at

352) . The di f f er ence bet ween t he FAC and t he pl ai nt i f f s summar y

j udgment mot i on, i n t er ms of t he r el i ef sought , r equi r es t he

cour t t o f i r st ascer t ai n exact l y what t ypes of r el i ef t hepl ai nt i f f s ar e seeki ng.

I n t hei r pr ayer f or r el i ef , t he pl ai nt i f f s ar e seeki ng

decl ar at or y and i nj unct i ve r el i ef , as wel l as at t or neys f ees

and cost s pur suant t o 42 U. S. C. 1988( b) . FAC ( Doc. 45) at 28-

29, 3- 5. I n t hei r summary j udgment mot i on, however , t he

pl ai nt i f f s ar e expandi ng t he scope of t he r el i ef . Now, t he

pl ai nt i f f s ar e al so seeki ng t o make whole class members

previously injured by def endant s det ai ni ng, ar r est i ng, and

pr osecut i ng non- smuggl er mi gr ant s f or conspi r acy t o t r anspor t

t hemsel ves i n vi ol at i on of Ar i z. Rev. St at . 13- 2319[ . ] Pl s.

SJ M ( Doc. 121) at 3: 5- 9 ( emphasi s added) . The pl ai nt i f f s

pr oposed summary j udgment order r eveal s t he nat ur e of such

r el i ef . Mor e speci f i cal l y, t he pl ai nt i f f s r equest t hat t he

[ c] onvi ct i ons secur ed agai nst per sons f or conspi r i ng t o

t r anspor t t hemsel ves, and no one el se, i n pur por t ed vi ol at i on

of Ar i z. Rev. St at . 13- 2319 ar e i nconsi st ent wi t h t he

Supr emacy Cl ause, U. S. Const . , Ar t . VI , cl . 2, and ar e

accor di ngl y decl ared nul l and voi d. Proposed Summary J udgment

Or der ( Doc. 123) at 2: 2- 5, 3.

The cour t wi l l not consi der whet her t he t axpayer pl ai nt i f f s

( or , f or t hat mat t er , t he or gani zat i onal pl ai nt i f f s) have

st andi ng t o pur sue t hi s bel at ed r equest f or r et r ospect i ve

decl ar at or y r el i ef . I n t he f i r st pl ace, nei t her of t he

pl ai nt i f f s t wo pr oposed cl ass def i ni t i ons i ncl udes put at i ve



20/60

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 20 -

cl ass members who were previ ousl y i nj ur ed by t he Pol i cy. See

i d. at 3: 6. As pl ai nt i f f s t hemsel ves def i ne i t , t hei r f i r st

pr oposed cl ass i s: Al l i ndi vi dual who are . . . st opped,

det ai ned, ar r est ed, i ncar cer at ed, pr osecut ed, or penal i zed f orconspi r i ng t o t r anspor t t hemsel ves, and t hemsel ves onl y, i n

vi ol at i on of Ar i z. Rev. St at . 13- 2319[ . ] Cl ass Cer t i f i cat i on

Mot . ( Doc. 122) at 5: 26- 28 ( emphasi s added) . The second

pr oposed cl ass per t ai ns t o muni ci pal t axpayer s. Thus, even

assumi ng arguendo t hat t he cour t wer e t o gr ant cl ass

cer t i f i cat i on t o bot h cl asses, by pl ai nt i f f s own def i ni t i on,

nei t her woul d i ncl ude cl ass member s pr evi ousl y i nj ur ed by t he

Pol i cy. See Pl s. SJ M ( Doc. 121) at 3: 6.

The second r eason f or decl i ni ng t o consi der whet her any of

t he pl ai nt i f f s have st andi ng t o pur sue ret r ospect i ve decl ar at or y

r el i ef i s t hat t hi s r equest i s bel at ed and has not been

adequat el y addr essed by t he pl ai nt i f f s. The pl ai nt i f f s di d not

seek t hi s f or m of r el i ef i n t hei r FAC. I n t he f i nal par agr aph

of t he FAC, t he pl ai nt i f f s do r equest t he cour t t o [ g] r ant such

f ur t her r el i ef as [ i t ] deems j ust . FAC ( Doc. 45) at 29, 6.

That boi l er pl at e phr ase i s i nsuf f i ci ent t o put t he def endant s

on not i ce t hat as par t of t hi s l awsui t t he pl ai nt i f f s ar e aski ng

t hi s f eder al cour t t o nul l i f y pot ent i al l y t housands of pr i or

st at e cour t convi ct i ons.

Rul e 54( c) does per mi t a cour t t o gr ant t he r el i ef t o

whi ch each par t y i s ent i t l ed, even i f t he par t y has not demanded

t hat r el i ef i n i t s pl eadi ngs. Fed. R. Ci v. P. 54( c). The

pl ai nt i f f s cer t ai nl y have not shown t hei r ent i t l ement t o t hi s

par t i cul ar r el i ef , however . They onl y ment i on i t once i n



21/60

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 21 -

passi ng i n t hei r summar y j udgment mot i on, and t hen i ncl ude i t

i n aproposedor der submi t t ed i n connect i on wi t h t hat mot i on.

The l ack of any br i ef i ng on pl ai nt i f f s supposed ent i t l ement t o

r et r ospect i ve decl ar at or y r el i ef i s pr obl emat i c because i t i snot a pr edi ct abl e r emedy as t o t hei r pr eempt i on cl ai m. Cont r a

Muel l er v. Auker , 2010 WL 2265867, at *5 ( D. I daho J une 4, 2010)

( A pr edi ct abl e r emedy f or const i t ut i onal vi ol at i ons i ncl udes

decl ar at or y and i nj unct i ve r el i ef [ . ] ) Last l y, t he cour t i s

concer ned about possi bl e pr ej udi ce t o t he def endant s gi ven t hat

t he pl ai nt i f f s demand f or t hi s r et r ospect i ve decl ar at or y r el i ef

was expl i ci t l y r ai sed f or t he f i r st t i me i n t hei r pr oposed

summar y j udgment or der .

Havi ng det er mi ned t hat t he pot ent i al avai l abl e r el i ef i n

t hi s case i s pr ospect i ve decl ar at or y and i nj unct i ve r el i ef , t he

cour t wi l l next addr ess whet her t he t axpayer pl ai nt i f f s have

st andi ng t o seek such r el i ef . The st andi ng f or mul at i on f or

a pl ai nt i f f seeki ng pr ospect i ve i nj unct i ve r el i ef gener al l y

r equi r es t hat t he pl ai nt i f f s concret e i nj ur y be coupl ed wi t h

a suf f i ci ent l i kel i hood t hat he wi l l agai n be wr onged i n a

si mi l ar way. Har o, 2013 WL 4734032, at *4 ( quot i ng Bates v.

Uni t ed Par cel Ser v. , I nc. , 511 F. 3d 974, 985 ( 9t h Ci r . 2007) ( en

banc) ( ( quot i ng i n t ur n Ci t y of Los Angel es v. Lyons, 461 U. S.

95, 111, 103 S. Ct . 1660, 75 L. Ed. 2d 675 ( 1983) ) . I n addi t i on,

t he cl ai med t hr eat of i nj ur y must be l i kel y to be r edr essed by

t he pr ospect i ve i nj unct i ve r el i ef . Bat es, 511 F. 3d 985

( ci t at i on omi t t ed) . That does not mean t hat a f avor abl e

deci si on will inevitably r edress [ t hei r i nj ur i es] [ . ] See

I br ahi m v. Dep t of Homel and Sec. , 669 F. 3d 983, 993 ( 9t h Ci r .



22/60

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 22 -

2012) ( quot i ng Wi l bur v. Locke, 423 F. 3d 1101, 1108 ( 9t h Ci r .

2005) ( i nt er nal quot at i ons omi t t ed, emphasi s and al t er at i ons i n

or i gi nal ) ( quot i ng i n t ur n Gr aham v. FEMA, 149 F. 3d 997, 1003

( 9t h

Ci r . 1998) , abrogated on other grounds byLevi n v. Commer ceEner gy, I nc. , 560 U. S. 413, 130 S. Ct . 2323, 176 L. Ed. 2d 1131

( 2010) ) . Rat her , t he [ p] l ai nt i f f s must show onl y t hat a

f avor abl e deci si on i s likelyt o redress [ t hei r i nj ur i es] [ . ]

I d. That st andar d i s met her e.

The t axpayer pl ai nt i f f s have shown a concr et e, necessar y

i nj ur y act ual expendi t ur e of t ax dol l ar s vis-a-vis t he

Pol i cy. See Cammack v. Wai hee, 932 F. 2d 765, 772 ( 9t h Ci r .

1991) . Fur t her mor e, t he def endant s admi t t hat t hey cont i nue

t o . . . ar r est and pr osecut e per sons f or conspi r i ng t o

t r anspor t t hemsel ves i n vi ol at i on of Ar i zona s human smuggl i ng

st at ut e. See Pl s. SOF ( Doc. 121- 1) at 4: 8- 10, 5; see al so

Def s. Resp. SOF ( Doc. 129) at 3: 17- 4: 6, 5. Ther ef or e, t he

i nj ur y t o t he t axpayer pl ai nt i f f s cont i nues unabat ed.

Consequent l y, t her e i s a suf f i ci ent l i kel i hood t hat t he

t axpayer pl ai nt i f f s wi l l agai n be wr onged i n a si mi l ar way[ , ]

i.e., by havi ng t hei r Count y t axes expended t o enf or ce a Pol i cy

whi ch t hey mai nt ai n f ederal l aw preempt s. See Haro, 2013 WL

4734032, at *4 ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and ci t at i ons omi t t ed) .

Addi t i onal l y, t he cl ai med t hr eat of i nj ur y t he mi suse of

t he t axpayer s Count y t axes t o f und t he Pol i cy i s l i kel y to

be r emedi ed by pr ospect i ve i nj unct i ve and decl ar at or y r el i ef .

As pl ai nt i f f Luj an succi nctl y put i t , enj oi ni ng t he Pol i cy woul d

mean t hat hi s l ocal t ax payment s woul d no l onger be di ver t ed

t o t h[ e] unl awf ul pur pose of t he Pol i cy. Pl s. Supp. Exh. 17



23/60

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 23 -

( Doc. 126- 3) at 42, 4. Thi s i s f ul l y consi st ent wi t h t he l ong

hel d vi ew, as l ai d out i n WAA/ SACA I V, 809 F. Supp. 2d 1084, t hat

[ t ] he i nt er est of a t axpayer of a muni ci pal i t y i n t he

appl i cat i on of i t s moneys i s di r ect and i mmedi ate and t he r emedyby i nj unct i on t o pr event t hei r mi suse i s not i nappr opr i at e.

I d. at 1106 ( quot i ng Frot hi ngham v. Mel l on, 262 U. S. 447, 486-

487, 43 S. Ct . 597, 67 L. Ed. 1078 ( 1923) ) . For al l of t hese

r easons, t he cour t f i nds t hat pl ai nt i f f s Hagl und and Luj an have

muni ci pal t axpayer st andi ng as t o t he pr eempt i on cl ai m and as

t o t he pr ospect i ve equi t abl e r el i ef sought . Thus, t he cour t

deni es t hi s aspect of def endant s summary j udgment mot i on.

I f t he cour t f i nds, as i t has, t hat t he muni ci pal t axpayer

pl ai nt i f f s have st andi ng, t hen, t hey cont end ( and t he def endant s

do not di sagr ee) , t hat t her e i s no need t o consi der whet her t he

or gani zat i onal pl ai nt i f f s al so have st andi ng. Pl ai nt i f f s base

t hei r cont ent i on upon t he gener al r ul e [ i n] f eder al cour t

sui t s wi t h mul t i pl e pl ai nt i f f s . . . t hat once t he cour t

det er mi nes t hat one of t he pl ai nt i f f s has st andi ng, i t need not

deci de t he st andi ng of t he ot her s. See Mel endr es v. Ar pai o, 695

F. 3d 990, 999 ( 9t h Ci r . 2012) ( quot i ng Leonar d v. Cl ar k, 12 F. 3d

885, 888 ( 9t h Ci r . 1993) ) . I n Mel endr es, Lat i no mot or i st s and

passengers and t he organi zat i on Somos Amer i ca, br ought an act i on

under 1983 al l egi ng t hat t he MCSO and Sher i f f Ar pai o, among

ot her s, engaged i n a pol i cy of r aci al l y pr of i l i ng Lat i nos i n

connect i on wi t h t r af f i c st ops. Appl yi ng t hat gener al r ul e i n

Mel endr es, t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t , af t er f i ndi ng t hat Lat i no

mot or i st s and passenger s had st andi ng, expr essl y decl i ned t o

addr ess whet her Somos Amer i ca, an organi zat i on, met t he



24/60

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

13 As t he def endant s acknowl edge, al t hough the pr eempt i on i ssuear ose ear l i er i n t hi s case i n a di f f er ent cont ext , t he cour t has notdi sposi t i vel y rul ed on whet her t he Pol i cy i s pr eempt ed by f eder ali mmi gr at i on l aw. Def s. SJ M ( Doc. 119) at 2: 19, n. 1. Ther ef or e, not hi ngabout t hose pr i or deci si ons pr ecl udes revi si t i ng t he pr eempt i on anew. Thi si s al l t he more so gi ven: ( 1) t he compl et i on of di scovery, and hence a mor ef ul l y devel oped r ecor d; ( 2) t he f eder al pr eempt i on i ssue i s squar el y r ai sedby t he part i es summary j udgment mot i ons; and ( 3) t he evol vi ng st ate of t hel aw i n t hi s ar ea.

- 24 -

r equi r ement s f or associ at i onal st andi ng. I d.

Thi s cour t di d depar t f r om t hat gener al r ul e i n WAA/ SACA

I V, 809 F. Supp. 2d at 1090- 1094, as t he par t i es ar e wel l awar e.

The st andi ng i ssue i s bef or e t he cour t now i n a di f f er entpr ocedur al post ur e - - on a mot i on f or summary j udgment mot i on,

not on a mot i on t o di smi ss. Consequent l y, as i t st r ongl y

i nt i mat ed i n WAA/ SACA I V, havi ng f ound t hat t he muni ci pal

t axpayer pl ai nt i f f s have st andi ng as t o t he pr eempt i on cl ai mand

f or t he r el i ef sought , t he cour t wi l l not addr ess whet her t he

WAA/ SAC and AHFC, t he or gani zat i onal pl ai nt i f f s, al so have

st andi ng. See i d. at 1093 ( By cont r ast , i f def endant s wer e

movi ng f or summary j udgment on t he dual grounds of l ack of

st andi ng and t he mer i t s, pl ai nt i f f s ar gument t hat t he cour t

need not r each t he i ssue of or gani zat i onal pl ai nt i f f s st andi ng,

i f i t f i nds t hat t he t axpayer s have st andi ng, woul d car r y f ar

mor e wei ght . ) I t i s si mpl y not necessary.

B. Federal Preemption13

The pl ai nt i f f s ar e pur sui ng onl y t hei r Federal Pr eempt i on

cl ai m, opt i ng f or vol unt ar y di smi ssal of t hei r ot her cl ai ms.

See FAC ( Doc. 45) at 25: 25. The pl ai nt i f f s al l ege t hat t he

Pol i cy i s an i mper mi ssi bl e at t empt by st at e act or s t o r egul at e

i mmi gr at i on, and as such unl awf ul l y usur ps t he f eder al



25/60

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

14 The const i t ut i onal basi s f or pl ai nt i f f s ar gument i s Congr ess power [ t ] o est abl i sh an uni f or m Rul e of Nat ur al i zat i on[ , ] and i t s power[ t ] o r egul at e Commer ce wi t h f or ei gn Nat i ons[ . ] See U. S. Const . Ar t . I , 8, cl s . 3- 4.

- 25 -

gover nment s excl usi ve power t o regul at e i mmi gr at i on i n

vi ol at i on of t he Uni t ed St at es Const i t ut i on14 and t he

I mmi gr at i on and Nat i onal i t y Act , 8 U. S. C. 1101 et seq.

( I NA) . I d. at 25: 28- 26: 2, 53. I n movi ng f or summar yj udgment on t hi s cl ai m, t he pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat f eder al l aw

i mpl i edl y pr eempt s t he Pol i cy. Cont r ar i wi se, t he def endant s

ar gue that f eder al l aw does not i mpl i edl y pr eempt t he Pol i cy.

The def endant s t hus asser t t hat t hey, and not t he pl ai nt i f f s,

ar e ent i t l ed t o summar y j udgment on t he i ssue of f i el d

pr eempt i on.

Bef or e consi der i ng t he par t i es pr eempt i on ar gument s,

t her e i s one pr ef at or y i ssue. Fr om t he i ncept i on of t hi s

l awsui t , t he pl ai nt i f f s made a seemi ngl y del i ber at e choi ce t o

chal l enge onl y t he Pol i cy - - - and not A. R. S. 13- 2319. The

def endant s are t aki ng t he posi t i on, however , t hat because the

pl ai nt i f f s ar e not at t acki ng t he const i t ut i onal i t y of A. R. S.

13- 2319, or ar gui ng t hat f eder al l aw pr eempt s t hat st at e

st at ut e, t hey cannot ar gue t hat f eder al l aw pr eempt s t he Pol i cy

i t sel f . The def endant s of f er no l egal suppor t f or t hi s novel

pr oposi t i on. The al l egat i ons of pl ai nt i f f s FAC and t he l egal

t heor i es whi ch t hey pur sue ar e t hei r pr er ogat i ve. The cour t ,

t her ef or e, agr ees wi t h t he pl ai nt i f f s t hat t hey may chal l enge

t he Pol i cy as conf l i ct and f i el d pr eempt ed r egar dl ess of 13-

2319' s f aci al const i t ut i onal i t y. See Pl s. Repl y ( Doc. 134)

at 9: 20- 21.



26/60

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 26 -

The Supr emacy Cl ause pr ovi des a cl ear r ul e t hat f eder al

l aw shal l be t he supr eme Law of t he Land; and t he J udges i n

ever y St at e shal l be bound t her eby, any Thi ng i n t he

Const i t ut i on or Laws of any St at e t o t he Cont r ar ynot wi t hst andi ng. Ar i zona v. U. S. , 567 U. S. - - - - , 132 S. Ct .

2492, 2500, 183 L. Ed. 2d 351 ( 2012) ( quot i ng U. S. Const . Ar t . VI ,

cl . 2) . I t i s t hus [ a] f undament al pr i nci pl e of t he

Const i t ut i on . . . t hat Congr ess has t he power t o pr eempt st at e

l aw. Cr osby v. Nat l For ei gn Tr ade Counci l , 530 U. S. 363, 372,

120 S. Ct . 2288, 147 L. Ed. 2d 352 ( 2000) ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) .

Mor eover , on t he subj ect of i mmi gr at i on and t he st at us of

al i ens[ , ] [ t ] he Gover nment of t he Uni t ed St at es has broad,

undoubt ed power [ . ] Ar i zona, 132 S. Ct . , at 2498 ( ci t at i ons

omi t t ed) ; see al so DeCanas v. Bi ca, 424 U. S. 351, 354, 96 S. Ct .

933, 47 L. Ed. 2d 43 ( 1976) , superseded by statute on other

grounds as stated in Chamber of Comm. v. Whi t i ng, 563 U. S. - - - - ,

131 S. Ct . 1968, 179 L. Ed. 2d 1031 ( 2011) ( The [ p] ower t o

r egul at e i mmi gr at i on i s unquest i onabl y excl usi vel y a f eder al

power . ) I ndeed, t hat power i s wel l set t l ed[ , ] r ef l ect i ve of ,

among ot her t hi ngs, t he f act t hat [ i ] mmi gr at i on pol i cy can

af f ect t r ade, i nvest ment , t our i sm, and di pl omat i c r el at i ons f or

t he ent i r e Nat i on, as wel l as t he per cept i ons and expect at i ons

of al i ens i n t hi s count r y who seek t he f ul l pr ot ect i on of i t s

l aws. Ar i zona, 132 S. Ct . , at 2498 ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) .

Thi s f eder al i mmi grat i on power der i ves, i n part , f r om t he

f eder al gover nment s const i t ut i onal power t o est abl i sh an

uni f or mRul e of Nat ur al i zat i on, . . . , and i t s i nher ent power

as sover ei gn t o cont r ol and conduct r el at i ons wi t h f or ei gn



27/60

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 27 -

nat i ons[ . ] I d. ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . That sai d, t he Supr eme

Cour t has never hel d t hat ever y st ate enact ment whi ch i n any

way deal s wi t h al i ens i s a r egul at i on of i mmi gr at i on and t hus

per se pr e- empt ed by thi s const i t ut i onal power [ . ] DeCanas, 424U. S. , at 355 ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) .

Feder al pr eempt i on can be ei t her expr ess or i mpl i ed. Gade

v. Nat i onal Sol i d Wast es Management Assn. , 505 U. S. 88, 98, 112

S. Ct . 2374, 120 L. Ed. 2d 72 ( 1992) . I mpl i ed pr eempt i on i s t he

onl y i ssue whi ch t hese summary j udgment mot i ons r ai se, however .

I mpl i ed pr eempt i on compr i ses t wo, al bei t not r i gi dl y

di st i nct [ , ] subcat egor i es, - f i el d and conf l i ct pr eempt i on.

Cr osby, 530 U. S. , at 372 n. 6 ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and

ci t at i on omi t t ed) . Fi el d pr eempt i on pr ecl udes St at es f r om

r egul at i ng conduct i n a f i el d t hat Congr ess, act i ng wi t hi n i t s

pr oper aut hor i t y, has det er mi ned must be regul at ed by i t s

excl usi ve gover nance. Ar i zona, 132 S. Ct . , at 2501 ( ci t at i on

omi t t ed) . Conf l i ct pr eempt i on occur s wher e compl i ance wi t h

bot h f eder al and st at e r egul at i ons i s a physi cal

i mpossi bi l i t y[ . ] Fl or i da Li me & Avocado Gr ower s, I nc. v. Paul ,

373 U. S. 132, 142143, 83 S. Ct . 1210, 10 L. Ed. 2d 248 ( 1963) .

I t can al so occur i n t hose i nst ances wher e t he chal l enged st at e

l aw st ands as an obst acl e t o t he accompl i shment and execut i on

of t he f ul l pur poses and obj ect i ves of Congr ess[ . ] Ar i zona,

132 S. Ct . , at 2501 ( quot i ng Hi nes, 312 U. S. , at 67, 61 S. Ct .

399) . I n t he pr esent case, t he par t i es conf l i ct pr eempt i on

argument s cent er on act ual and obst acl e pr eempt i on, as opposed

t o i mpossi bi l i t y. The cour t wi l l s i mi l ar l y conf i ne i t s

anal ysi s.



28/60

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 28 -

Ther e ar e t wo cor ner st ones of pr eempt i on j ur i spr udence.

Aguayo v. U. S. Bank, 653 F. 3d 912, 917 ( 2011) ( quot i ng Wyet h v.

Levi ne, 555 U. S. 555, 129 S. Ct . 1187, 1194, 173 L. Ed. 2d 51

( 2009) . Fi r st , [ r ] egar dl ess of t he t ype of pr eempt i on i nvol ved. . . [ t ] he pur pose of Congr ess i s t he ul t i mat e t ouchst one of

pr e- empt i on anal ysi s. Gi l st r ap v. Uni t ed Ai r Li nes, I nc. , 709

F. 3d 995, 1003 ( 9t h Ci r . 2013) ( quot i ng Ci pol l one v. Li gget t

Gr p. , I nc. , 505 U. S. 504, 516, 112 S. Ct . 2608, 120 L. Ed. 2d 407

( 1992) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ) . Second, a cour t

shoul d assume t hat t he hi st or i c pol i ce power s of t he St at es

ar e not super seded unl ess t hat was t he cl ear and mani f est

pur pose of Congr ess. See Ar i zona, 132 S. Ct . , at 2501 ( quot i ng

Ri ce v. Sant a Fe El evat or Cor p. , 331 U. S. 218, 230, 67 S. Ct .

1146, 91 L. Ed. 1447 ( 1947) ) ( ot her ci t at i on omi t t ed) . Wi t h

t hese pr i nci pl es f i r ml y i n mi nd, t he cour t wi l l f i r st consi der

whet her f eder al l aw, and mor e par t i cul ar l y t he I NA, pr eempt s t he

Pol i cy.

1. Field Preemption

The cr ux of t he def endants f i el d preempt i on ar gument

i s t he l at t er pr i nci pl e. That i s, t he def endant s ar gue t hat

t hey shoul d pr evai l on t he f i el d pr eempt i on i ssue because t he

pl ai nt i f f s cannot pr ove . . . t hat i t was t he clear and

manifest pur pose of Congr ess t o oust st at e power f r om t he

f i el d of al i en smuggl i ng. Def s. SJ M ( Doc. 119) at 8: 25- 9: 1

(c i t i ng, inter alia, DeCanas, 424 U. S. , at 357) ( emphasi s added

by def endant s) . On t he ot her hand, t he pl ai nt i f f s ar gue t hat

because Congr ess f ul l y r egul at es conspi r aci es t o t r anspor t

unaut hor i zed ent r ant s[ , ] t he Pol i cy i s f i el d pr eempt ed. Pl s.



29/60

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

15 Thi s appeal was ar gued and submi t t ed i n t he Ni nt h Ci r cui t onApr i l 2, 2013. Val l e del Sol v. Whi t i ng, No. 12- 17152. A deci si on has yett o be i ssued.

- 29 -

SJ M ( Doc. 121) at 10: 5- 6. I n maki ng t hi s ar gument , t he

pl ai nt i f f s r el y upon t he Supr eme Cour t s r at i onal e i n Ar i zona,

132 S. Ct . 2492. Pl s. SJ M ( Doc. 121) at 10: 7. Ther e, t he

Supreme Cour t hel d, inter alia, t hat because t he FederalGover nment has occupi ed t he f i el d of al i en r egi st r at i on[ , ]

3 of S. B. 1070, whi ch made i t a st at e mi sdemeanor t o f ai l t o

compl y wi t h f eder al al i en r egi st r at i on r equi r ement s, was f i el d

pr eempt ed. I d. at 2502 ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) .

The pl ai nt i f f s al so heavi l y r el y upon t wo El event h Ci r cui t

deci si ons Geor gi a Lat i no Al l i ance f or Human Ri ght s v. Deal ,

691 F. 3d 1250, 1256 ( 11t h Ci r . 2012) ( GLAHR) ; and Uni t ed

St at es v. Al abama, 691 F. 3d 1269, 1285 ( 11t h Ci r . 2012) , cert.

denied, 569 U. S. - - - - , 133 S. Ct . 2022, 185 L. Ed. 2d 905 ( Apr . 29,

2013) . As par t of sweepi ng i mmi gr at i on r ef or m l egi sl at i on i n

2011, Geor gi a and Al abama cr i mi nal i zed a var i et y of act i vi t i es

per t ai ni ng t o unaut hor i zed or i l l egal al i ens, i ncl udi ng

t r anspor t i ng, conceal i ng or har bor i ng such al i ens. I n GLAHR,

t he El event h Ci r cui t af f i r med a di st r i ct cour t s f i ndi ng t hat

t hose Geor gi a st at ut es wer e f i el d pr eempt ed by t he I NA s

cr i mi nal pr ovi si ons, par t i cul ar l y 8 U. S. C. 1324. GLAHR, 691

F. 3d at 1285- 1287; see al so Al abama, 691 F. 3d at 1285- 1287

( appl yi ng GLAHR s r easoni ng t o f i ndi ng si mi l ar Al abama st at ut es

f i el d pr eempt ed) ; Val l e del Sol v. Whi t i ng, 2012 WL 8021265, at

*5 ( D. Ar i z. Sept . 5, 2012) 15 ( adopt i ng t he El event h Ci r cui t s

r at i onal e, and hol di ng t hat 5 of S. B. 1070, Ar i zona s



30/60

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 30 -

count erpar t t o t he st at ut es at i ssue i n GLAHR and Al abama, was

f i el d pr eempt ed) .

Mai nt ai ni ng t hat [ t ] her e i s no pr i nci pl ed way t o

di st i ngui sh t he Pol i cy f r om t he st at e st at ut es at i ssue i nAr i zona, GLAHR, Al abama, and Val l e del Sol , t he pl ai nt i f f s argue

t hat t hose cases ar e det er mi nat i ve of t he f i el d pr eempt i on i ssue

her ei n. See Pl s. SJ M ( Doc. 121) at 11: 7. The def endant s

r ej oi nder i s t hat t he Pol i cy i s mat er i al l y and subst ant i vel y

di f f er ent f r om t he chal l enged st at ut es i n t he cases j ust

l i st ed. Def s. Repl y ( Doc. 132) at 4: 4- 5. Based upon t hose

cl ai med di f f er ences, t he def endant s argue t hat none of t he cases

upon whi ch t he pl ai nt i f f s ar e r el yi ng appl y t o t he f i el d

pr eempt i on i ssue now bef or e t hi s cour t . The par t i es st r ong

di sput e as t o t he appl i cabi l i t y of Ar i zona and t he El event h

Ci r cui t s deci si ons i n GLAHR and Al abama r equi r e cl oser

exami nat i on of each.

I n Ar i zona, t o det er mi ne whet her 3 of S. B. 1070 i nt r uded

on t he f i el d of al i en r egi st r at i on, t he Supr eme Cour t began by

r ei t er at i ng t hat t he St at es ar e pr ecl uded f r om r egul at i ng

conduct i n a f i el d t hat Congr ess, act i ng wi t hi n i t s pr oper

aut hor i t y, has det er mi ned must be r egul at ed by i t s excl usi ve

gover nance. Ar i zona, 132 S. Ct . , at 2501 ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) .

The Supreme Court al so r eci t ed t he wel l set t l ed r ul e t hat [ t ] he

i nt ent t o di spl ace st at e l aw al t oget her can be i nf er r ed f r om a

f r amewor k of r egul at i on so per vasi ve . . . t hat Congr ess l ef t

no r oom f or t he St at es t o suppl ement i t orwher e t her e i s a

f eder al i nt er est . . . so domi nant t hat t he f eder al syst emwi l l

be assumed t o pr ecl ude enf orcement of st at e l aws on t he same



31/60

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 31 -

subj ect . I d. ( quot i ng Ri ce, 331 U. S. , at 230) ( ot her ci t at i on

omi t t ed) ( emphasi s added) .

Exami ni ng t he hi st or y of f eder al al i en r egi st r at i on

r equi r ement s agai nst t hat l egal backdr op, t he Ar i zona Cour t hel dt hat t he f eder al gover nment has occupi ed t hat f i el d because

[ t ] he f eder al st at ut or y di r ect i ves pr ovi de a f ul l set of

st andar ds gover ni ng al i en r egi st r at i on, i ncl udi ng puni shment f or

noncompl i ance[ , ] . . . desi gned as a har moni ous whol e. I d.

( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and ci t at i on omi t t ed) . I n such a

case, [ w] her e Congr ess occupi es an ent i r e f i el d, t he Supr eme

Cour t f ound t hat even compl ement ar y st at e r egul at i on i s

i mper mi ssi bl e. Ar i zona, 132 S. Ct . , at 2502. Such st at e

r egul at i on i s i mper mi ssi bl e because [ f ] i el d pr eempt i on

r ef l ect s a congr essi onal deci si on t o f or ecl ose any state

r egul at i on i n t he ar ea, even i f i t i s par al l el t o f eder al

st andar ds. I d. ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) ( emphasi s added) .

The def endant s asser t t hat t he pl ai nt i f f s heavy r el i ance

upon Ar i zona i s mi st aken[ , ] as t he Supr eme Cour t s anal ysi s[ ]

i s not cont r ol l i ng. Def s. Resp. ( Doc. 128) at 2: 12 ( emphasi s

omi t t ed) ; Def s. Repl y ( Doc. 132) at 3: 6. The mai n basi s f or

t hi s def ense ar gument i s t he di f f er ence i n subj ect mat t er .

Unl i ke t he pr esent case i nvol vi ng al i en smuggl i ng, t he por t i on

of Ar i zona whi ch t he pl ai nt i f f s i nvoke deal t wi t h al i en

r egi st r at i on, and i t has l ong been hel d t hat t he Feder al

Gover nment . . . occupi e[ s] t hat f i el d. See Ar i zona, 132

S. Ct . , at 2502 ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . Thi s di st i nct i on does not

r ender Ar i zona any l ess appl i cabl e her e. That i s because, as

di scussed next , i n GLAHR t he El event h Ci r cui t soundl y r easoned,



32/60

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 32 -

and t hi s cour t agr ees, t hat Ar i zona pr ovi des an i nst r uct i ve

anal ogy even out si de t he r eal m of al i en r egi st r at i on. See

GLAHR, 691 F. 3d at 1264. I n ot her wor ds, Ar i zona s si gni f i cance

l i es not i n i t s subj ect mat t er but because i t pr ovi des a usef ulf r amewor k f or exami ni ng pr eempt i on i n t he cont ext of f eder al

i mmi gr at i on.

Br oadl y st at ed, Geor gi a enact ed st at ut es cr i mi nal i zi ng t he

t r anspor t , conceal ment and har bor i ng of i l l egal al i ens, as

ear l i er ment i oned. When conf r ont ed wi t h t he i ssue of whet her

t hose st at ut es were pr eempt ed by t he I NA, t he El event h Ci r cui t

l ooked f i r st t o t he t ext of 8 U. S. C. 1324 t o ascer t ai n

Congr essi onal i nt ent . Sect i on 1324 cr eat es sever al di scr et e

cr i mes wi t h r espect t o unl awf ul l y pr esent al i ens. That st at ut e

makes i t a f eder al cr i me f or any per son t o br i ng an al i en i nt o

t he Uni t ed St at es; t o t r anspor t or move an unl awf ul l y pr esent

al i en wi t hi n t he Uni t ed St at es; t o conceal , har bor , or shi el d

an unl awf ul l y pr esent al i en f r om det ect i on; or t o encour age or

i nduce an al i en t o come t o, ent er , or r esi de i n t he Uni t ed

St at es. I d. at 1263 ( ci t at i on, i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and

f oot not e omi t t ed) . I t i s al so unl awf ul pur suant t o 1324 f or

any person t o conspi r e or ai d i n t he commi ssi on of any of t hose

enumer at ed of f enses. I d. ( ci t at i on omi t t ed) .

[ P] er mi t [ t i ng] l ocal l aw enf or cement of f i cer s t o ar r est

f or t hese vi ol at i ons of f eder al l aw, whi l e si mul t aneousl y

mai nt ai ni ng excl usi ve j ur i sdi ct i on f or federal pr osecut i on

i n federal cour t [ , ] pr ovi ded f ur t her i ndi ci a of t he

comprehensi ve f r amewor k of t he I NA, t he GLAHR Cour t r easoned.

I d. at 1264 ( ci t at i ons omi t t ed) . The sweep of 1324 i ncl udes



33/60

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 33 -

di ct at i ng evi dent i ar y r ul es f or one of t he enumer at ed of f enses,

as wel l as mandat i ng a communi t y out r each pr ogr amr egardi ng t he

penal t i es associ at ed wi t h br i ngi ng i n and har bor i ng al i ens i n

vi ol at i on of t hat st at ut e. Ci t i ng t o De Canas, 424 U. S. 351, t heCour t i n GLAHR, concl uded t hat [ i ] n t he absence of a savi ngs

cl ause per mi t t i ng t he r egul at i on i n t he f i el d, t he i nf er ence

f r om t hese enact ment s i s t hat t he r ol e of t he st at es i s l i mi t ed

t o ar r est f or vi ol at i ons of f eder al l aw. I d. The f or egoi ng

per suaded t he El event h Ci r cui t i n GLAHR t hat [ t ] he I NA pr ovi des

a compr ehensi ve f r amewor k t o penal i ze t he t r anspor t at i on,

conceal ment , and i nducement of unl awf ul l y pr esent al i ens. I d.

at 1263.

To bol st er t hi s concl usi on, t he GLAHR Court exami ned

sect i on 1324' s pl ace i n t he l ar ger cont ext of f eder al st at ut es

cr i mi nal i zi ng t he act s under t aken by al i ens[ . ] I d. at 1264.

Af t er so doi ng, t he Cour t f ound t hat t he f eder al gover nment has

cl ear l y expr essed mor e t han a per i pher al concer n wi t h t he

ent r y, movement , and r esi dence of al i ens wi t hi n t he Uni t ed

St at es, and t hat t he br eadt h of t h[ o] se l aws i l l ust r at es an

over whel mi ngl y domi nant f eder al i nt er est i n t he f i el d. I d. ;

accor d Lozano v. Ci t y of Hazl et on, 2013 WL 3855549, at *14 ( 3r d

Ci r . J ul y 26, 2013) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks and ci t at i on

omi t t ed) ( We agr ee wi t h t he El event h Ci r cui t and ot her cour t s

t hat have hel d t hat t he f eder al gover nment has cl ear l y expr essed

more t han a per i pheral concer n wi t h t he ent r y, movement , and

r esi dence of al i ens wi t hi n t he Uni t ed St at es and t he br eadt h of

t hese l aws i l l ust r at es an over whel mi ngl y domi nant f eder al

i nt erest i n t he f i el d. )



34/60

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 34 -

Fur t her mor e, l i ke t he f eder al r egi st r at i on scheme i n

Ar i zona, t he El event h Ci r cui t hel d t hat Congr ess has pr ovi ded

a f ul l set of st andar ds t o gover n t he unl awf ul t r anspor t and

movement of al i ens. I d. ( quot i ng Ar i zona, 132 S. Ct . , at 2502) .Cont i nui ng, and agai n rel yi ng upon Ar i zona, t he GLAHR Cour t

f ound t hat [ t ] he I NA compr ehensi vel y addr esses cr i mi nal

penal t i es f or t hese act i ons under t aken wi t hi n t he bor der s of t he

Uni t ed St at es, and a st at e s at t empt t o i nt r ude i nt o t hi s ar ea

i s prohi bi t ed because Congr ess has adopt ed a cal i br at ed

f r amewor k wi t hi n t he I NA t o addr ess t hi s i ssue. I d. ( ci t i ng

Ar i zona, 132 S. Ct . , at 250203) . The GLAHR Cour t s f i nal

j ust i f i cat i on f or f i ndi ng t hat t he Geor gi a st at ut e was f i el d

pr eempt ed was t hat Congr ess di d not sanct i on[ ] concur r ent st ate

l egi sl at i on on t he subj ect cover ed by t he chal l enged st at e

l aw. I d. at 1265 ( quot i ng De Canas, 424 U. S. , at 363) .

Adopt i ng whol esal e GLAHR s r easoni ng, t he El event h Ci r cui t

i n Al abama, l i kewi se hel d t hat Al abama i s pr ohi bi t ed f r om

enact i ng concur r ent st at e l egi sl at i on i n t hi s f i el d of f eder al

concer n[ , ] Al abama, 691 F. 3d at 1287, i.e., t he

t r anspor t at i on, conceal ment , and i nducement of unl awf ul l y

pr esent al i ens[ . ] I d. at 1285 ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks

omi t t ed) ; see al so U. S. v. Sout h Car ol i na, 720 F. 3d 518, 531

( 4t h Ci r . 2013) ( quot i ng Ar i zona, 132 S. Ct . 2501) ( f i nd[ i ng]

t he El event h Ci r cui t s r easoni ng per suasi ve[ , ] and hol di ng

t hat st at e st at ut es maki ng i t a f el ony t o t r anspor t , move,

conceal , har bor , et c. unl awf ul al i ens wer e f i el d pr eempt ed

because t he vast ar r ay of f eder al l aws and r egul at i ons on t hi s

subj ect . . . , i s so per vasi ve . . . t hat Congr ess l ef t no



35/60

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 35 -

r oom f or t he St at es t o suppl ement i t [ ] ) . Par t i cul ar l y

si gni f i cant her e i s t hat much l i ke t he Pol i cy, Al abama al so

speci f i cal l y cri mi nal i zed conspi r i ng t o t r anspor t an unl awf ul l y

pr esent al i en, including an aliens conspiracy to betransported[ . ] Al abama, 691 F. 3d at 1285 ( emphasi s added) .

Sout h Car ol i na l i kewi se made i t a st at e f el ony f or [ , ] among

ot her t hi ngs, an unl awf ul l y pr esent per son t o al l ow hi msel f or

her sel f t o be t r anspor t ed or moved wi t hi n t he st at e[ . ] Sout h

Car ol i na, 720 F. 3d at 529. The st r i ki ng si mi l ar i t y bet ween t he

Pol i cy and t he Al abama and Sout h Car ol i na st atut es, whi ch t he

El event h and Four t h Ci r cui t s r espect i vel y f ound wer e f i el d

pr eempt ed, f ur t her er odes t he def endant s cont ent i on t hat

Ar i zona and i t s progeny ar e not ger mane t o t he f i el d pr eempt i on

her ei n.

The def endant s al so at t empt t o di st i ngui sh t he GLAHR l i ne

of cases because, i n t hei r vi ew, unl i ke t he Pol i cy, t hose

var i ous st at e st at ut es di d not i nvol ve . . . cr i mi nal human

smuggl i ng . . . per se[ ; ] nor di d t hey pr ohi bi t human smuggl i ng

f or pr of i t or commer ci al pur poses[ ] as does A. R. S. 13-

2319( A) . Def s. Repl y ( Doc. 132) at 3: 17- 19, C. These cl ai med

di st i nct i ons ar e, once agai n, unavai l i ng. To be sur e, none of

t hose st at e st at ut es expl i ci t l y ment i on human smuggl i ng, or

even smuggl i ng[ , ] but each cr i mi nal i zes t r anspor t i ng

unaut hor i zed or i l l egal al i ens. The cour t i s t hus har d pr essed

t o see how t hose st at ut es coul d be r ead t o excl ude smuggl i ng,

whi ch necessar i l y has a t r anspor t or movement component .

Fur t her mor e, pur suant t o t he Pol i cy, an unl awf ul l y pr esent al i en

who i s bei ng t r anspor t ed i s subj ect t o ar r est and pr osecut i on.



36/60

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 36 -

That proscr i bed conduct f i t s wi t hi n t he I NA s comprehensi ve

f r amewor k t o penal i ze t he transportation, conceal ment , and

i nducement of unlawfully present aliens[ ] as def i ned i n GLAHR,

691 F. 3d at 1263 ( emphasi s added) .The def endant s f ar e no bet t er wi t h t hei r ar gument t hat i t

was t he br eadt h of t he st ate st at ut es i n GLAHR and i t s progeny

whi ch l ed t o t he concl usi on t hat t he f eder al gover nment had

f ul l y occupi ed t he f i el d of al i en t r anspor t at i on and movement

wi t hi n t he Uni t ed St at es. The def endant s have i t backwar ds.

When t he i ssue i s f i el d pr eempt i on, t he f ocus i s on t he br eadt h

of t he f eder al st at ut es pur por t i ng t o occupy a gi ven f i el d, not

upon t he br eadt h of t he chal l enged st at e st at ut e. See GLAHR,

691 at 1264 ( Based on the breadth of federal regulation, the

Ar i zona Cour t hel d t hat t he f eder al gover nment occupi ed t he

f i el d of al i en r egi st r at i on. ) Consi st ent wi t h t hat vi ew,

nei t her t he El event h Ci r cui t i n GLAHR and Al abama, nor t he

Ar i zona Di st r i ct Cour t i n Val l e del Sol , consi der ed t he br eadt h

of t he chal l enged st at ut es as a basi s f or f i ndi ng f i el d

pr eempt i on.

Equal l y unavai l i ng i s t he def en

Documents

Summaryjudgment 092713