The question of whether federal standards trump state laws will be paramount during the US Supreme Court’s new term, including a case that pits the Chamber of Commerce against Arizona over the state’s immigration policy.
The business lobby group, with the backing of the Obama administration, is challenging an Arizona law that forces state employers to check job applicants’ immigration status in a federal database – even though federal law states that such checks should be voluntary. The Arizona law also gives the state the power to revoke a company’s state licences if it has hired undocumented workers.
The justices’ deliberations in the case will be closely watched nationally because it could provide clues about how the US high court might interpret a separate and highly controversial Arizona immigration statute that requires state police to check the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant. The Obama administration is challenging the law.
The Arizona case is one of three business-related cases that centre on the question of whether federal law trumps state law, which is known as pre-emption. In two other cases the court will decide whether a vaccine manufacturer and carmaker can be sued for alleged product defects under state law if the companies are technically in compliance with federal standards.
State tort claims expose companies to significant liabilities, so any decision by the court to limit the ability of state lawsuits would represent a big victory for business.
In one case, Williamson v Mazda, a carmaker was sued by the family of a woman who died because of allegations that the seatbelt in the minivan she was driving was defective, even though it met federal requirements. A ruling in favour of the victim’s family could open the door to more consumer lawsuits against carmakers.
Cases that examine pre-emption are not uncommon and vary depending on the federal law in question. But justices’ rulings will be important because it is the first term in which the retired Justice John Paul Stevens will be absent. The judge was the most liberal member of the court and was resistant to granting companies a pass on state laws in pre-emption cases.
Consumer advocates, who have lost their most important champion, are not expected to get much support from the newest justice, Elena Kagan, who replaced Mr Stevens.
Ms Kagan has recused herself from 10 of 17 business cases in the new term, which begins today, because of her previous role as solicitor-general of the US for the Obama administration.
Ian Millhiser, policy analyst at the left-leaning Center for American Progress, says the business community’s argument in favour of federal standards in these cases is at odds with views held by many conservatives who generally favour states’ rights. “It is strictly practical,” says Mr Millhiser.
The court will also hear a first amendment case in which the father of a fallen veteran has challenged the right of an anti-gay fundamentalist church to protest at the funerals of US veterans. The church says it believes the soldiers died because of US tolerance of homosexuality. An appeals court overturned a $5m judgment against the church by the father of one soldier, who claimed the church had intentionally inflicted emotional distress.
