Edward Lasseville v. Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, et al.

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,” wrote Emma Lazarus. Many citizens have heeded this iconic call to assist those arriving on America’s shores. Today, alien registration relies on the dedicated efforts of individuals in the private sector. Their diligent work supports the Department of Homeland Security’s mission, making all of their contributions indispensable to protecting against terrorism and ensuring national security. The Court has unequivocally held: The full set of standards governing alien registration, designed as a harmonious whole, occupies the entire field. Complementary state regulation is impermissible even if parallel to federal standards, Arizona v. UnitedStates, 567 U.S. 387, 401 (2012). California’s Immigration Consultants Act (ICA) directly invades this federal field. Federal regulations authorize practitioners and others to prepare alien registration documents, which should preclude state interference. The ICA’s byzantine obstacles, create perils up to $100,000 for errors, including felony prosecution. Federal law mandates that all immigration records remain confidential, 8 U.S.C. § 1304(b). The ICA allows any non-aggrieved U.S. national to inspect these sensitive documents. This is an untenable conflict with federal obligations, disrupting the uniformity critical to national security and falls squarely within the reasons for federal preemption. Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia have similarly invaded the field. The question presented is: Whether federal preemption bars California’s Immi­ gration Consultants Act from regulating practitioners and others assisting in alien registration.