Of Arizona’s SB 1070, the sweeping 2010 immigration enforcement law, only one major provision is still enforceable: Section 2(B), which directs police to check a person’s immigration status during a lawful stop, detention, or arrest when they have reasonable suspicion the person is unlawfully present. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down three other central sections in 2012, a federal appeals court blocked the harboring and transporting provision in 2013, and a 2016 settlement further narrowed how Section 2(B) can be used in the field.
What SB 1070 Set Out To Do
Arizona passed SB 1070 in April 2010 under the title “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act.”1Arizona Legislature. Arizona Senate Bill 1070 Its authors described the goal as “attrition through enforcement”: discouraging unauthorized immigration by pulling state and local police into work that had traditionally belonged to the federal government. A week after passage, the legislature amended the law through HB 2162, changing the trigger for immigration checks from any “lawful contact” to a “lawful stop, detention, or arrest” and adding explicit language barring officers from using race, color, or national origin as the sole basis for suspicion.2Arizona Legislature. HB 2162
Four provisions drew the sharpest legal challenges and shaped everything that followed:
- Section 2(B) required officers to attempt to verify immigration status during a lawful stop when they had reasonable suspicion the person was unlawfully present.
- Section 3 made it a state misdemeanor for a noncitizen to fail to carry federal registration documents.
- Section 5(C) made it a state crime for an unauthorized immigrant to seek or perform work in Arizona.
- Section 6 allowed warrantless arrests when an officer had probable cause to believe someone had committed an offense that made them deportable.
What the Supreme Court Struck Down in 2012
The federal government sued almost immediately, arguing that Congress had already occupied the field of immigration enforcement and that Arizona’s parallel rules were preempted. In Arizona v. United States, decided June 25, 2012, the Court agreed on three of the four provisions, ruling 5–3 (Justice Kagan recused).3Justia. Arizona v. United States
Section 3 was preempted because Congress had built a comprehensive federal registration system for noncitizens and left no space for states to add their own criminal penalties for the same conduct.3Justia. Arizona v. United States
Section 5(C) fell because it conflicted with the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, in which Congress deliberately chose to penalize employers who hire unauthorized workers while imposing only civil consequences on the workers themselves. Criminalizing the act of seeking work contradicted that federal design.3Justia. Arizona v. United States
Section 6 was struck down because it gave state officers independent authority to decide someone was removable and to arrest them on that basis, which intruded on the federal government’s exclusive control over removal decisions.3Justia. Arizona v. United States
Section 2(B) was the only major provision left standing. The Court reasoned that it was premature to strike down a status-verification requirement before anyone could show it conflicted with federal law in practice. The justices signaled that future challenges would remain viable if the provision led to prolonged detentions or civil rights violations.3Justia. Arizona v. United States
What Section 2(B) Requires Today
The surviving provision is codified at Arizona Revised Statutes § 11-1051(B). During any lawful stop, detention, or arrest, if an officer has reasonable suspicion that the person is unlawfully present, the officer must make a reasonable attempt to verify immigration status when practicable. The one exception is when the check would hinder or obstruct an ongoing investigation. For anyone formally arrested, immigration status must be determined before release, whether or not the officer had prior suspicion.4Arizona Legislature. Arizona Revised Statutes Title 11-1051
The statute also bars officers from using race, color, or national origin as a factor in deciding whether to check status, except to the extent the U.S. or Arizona Constitution permits. That prohibition came from HB 2162, not the original bill.2Arizona Legislature. HB 2162
The status check is not a freestanding police power. Officers cannot stop someone just to ask about immigration status. The inquiry has to attach to a stop that was already lawful for some other reason, such as a traffic violation or a criminal investigation. When a check is warranted, the officer contacts federal immigration authorities, who are required by 8 U.S.C. § 1373(c) to respond.5Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 8 USC 1373 – Communication Between Government Agencies and the Immigration and Naturalization Service
A person can end the inquiry by presenting qualifying identification. Under the statute, someone is presumed to be lawfully present on any of the following:
- A valid Arizona driver’s license
- A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license
- A valid tribal enrollment card or other tribal identification
- Any valid federal, state, or local government-issued ID, if the issuing agency requires proof of legal presence before issuing it
Presenting one of those documents effectively closes the question. Officers are not expected to challenge the validity of a qualifying ID.4Arizona Legislature. Arizona Revised Statutes Title 11-1051
How the 2016 Settlement Narrowed Enforcement
The long-running Friendly House v. Whiting case produced a 2016 settlement that placed real limits on how Section 2(B) can be enforced. Under its terms, the Arizona Attorney General issued an informal opinion setting out implementation guidelines for law enforcement statewide.6Attorney General’s Office. Advisory Model Policy for Law Enforcement Applying SB 1070 The central restriction is that officers cannot extend a stop or detention beyond its original purpose solely to check immigration status. If writing a citation takes ten minutes, the officer has to release the driver after those ten minutes whether or not the federal verification has come back.
That restriction is where most of Section 2(B)’s practical force went. The verification mandate still exists on paper, but the prohibition against prolonging stops means that an officer who cannot get a quick federal response simply has to let the person go. Federal verification is not always fast, and nothing forces it to be. The provision continues to bite when someone is booked into custody, because the statute independently requires that any arrested person’s status be determined before release. For roadside stops, the mandate is largely aspirational.
The Harboring and Transporting Provision Was Blocked Separately
SB 1070 also included a provision codified at ARS § 13-2929 that criminalized knowingly transporting or harboring someone unlawfully present, if the person doing so knew or recklessly disregarded that immigration status. This section was not in front of the Supreme Court in 2012 because it was challenged on a separate track. In 2013, the Ninth Circuit held it unenforceable on two grounds: it was unconstitutionally vague, because a key element of the offense was unintelligible, and it was preempted by federal law, because it criminalized conduct beyond what Congress had chosen to prohibit in the federal harboring statute. The court affirmed an injunction blocking its enforcement.
What SB 1070 Means for You Today
The map of what remains and what is gone is short:
- Section 2(B), status checks during lawful stops, is in effect but narrowed: no stop can be extended to run the check, race cannot form the basis of suspicion, and a valid Arizona ID creates a presumption of lawful presence.
- Section 3, failure to carry federal registration documents, was struck down as preempted.
- Section 5(C), criminal penalties on unauthorized workers seeking employment, was struck down as conflicting with federal law.
- Section 6, warrantless arrests for suspected deportability, was struck down as an intrusion on federal removal authority.
- ARS § 13-2929, harboring and transporting, is blocked by federal injunction.
If you are stopped by police in Arizona, the practical picture is simple. A valid Arizona driver’s license or qualifying government ID ends the immigration inquiry before it can develop. Under the 2016 settlement guidelines, officers cannot hold you past the point where the original reason for the stop is resolved, whether or not a federal status check has returned an answer.