Can someone more familiar with the precedent help me understand this case? It seems pretty clear that federal immigration law preempts any contradictory state law, but in this case the state law apparently does not contradict federal law. (Or is that not so?) Does the existence of the federal law prevent the state from enforcing even a compatible state law? Or does the exercise of discretion by the federal government regarding the manner in which federal law is enforced preempt a state from choosing to prosecute someone for violating state law if the federal government chose not to prosecute that person for violating an identical federal law?
Add comment