Question: Facts: When the plaintiffs initiated their challenge to the statute, the judge initially held that, since county prosecutors were charged with enforcing the law, they were the proper defendants in the suit. The plaintiffs, therefore, were dismissed for lacking standing. Undeterred, they returned to court, seeking to cure the standing issue and obtain a temporary restraining order. The court this time ordered a hearing on the motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO), which would prevent enforcement of the law pending a final resolution of their constitutional challenge. The federal judge declined to issue the TRO.

Issue: Is the Legal Arizona Workers Act Preempted by federal immigration law?

Decision: During the subsequent 12 months, the matter proceeded to hearing, and the district court dismissed the Arizona attorney general for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, because he lacked the authority to bring enforcement actions. The court ruled in favor of the remaining defendants on the merits. It held that the act is not expressly preempted by IRCA because the act is a licensing law within the meaning of the federal statute's savings clause. It held that neither the act's sanction provisions, nor the provision mandating use of the federal government's E-Verify identification system, was inconsistent with federal policy, and thus they were not impliedly preempted. Finally, the court held that the act did not, on its face, violate due process because employers' due process rights were adequately protected. The plaintiffs appealed. Thus, at last, the Ninth Circuit confronted the case on its merits. In September, the appeals court issued its decision. The appeals panel held:

"(1) Act was licensing measure that fell within savings clause of Immigration Reform and Control Act's (IRCA) preemption provision;

(2) Act was not impliedly preempted by IRCA; and

(3) Act did not, on its face, violate employers' right to procedural due process."