Arizona’s infamous immigration law of 2010 garnered national attention and prompted a lawsuit by the federal government. Many considered it to be the harshest of its kind in any state, but Louisiana had crafted a law years earlier that targeted immigrants on the roads and criminalized their status. Louisiana’s alien driving law, disguised as a rational exercise of the state’s police power, survived numerous court challenges. The legal landscape of state immigration laws, however, changed with the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Arizona v. United States, which strengthened the force of federal preemption of immigration law. This Comment explores the constitutionality of Louisiana’s alien driving law, both under an Arizona analysis and independent of it. It argues that Louisiana’s law is unconstitutional not only because of federal preemption, but also because it violates individual rights. It concludes that courts should be mindful to strike down state immigration laws on both grounds, lest we find ourselves with Arizona or Louisiana-style legislation becoming part of the system Congress creates.
Responses are scholarly reactions to Articles appearing in the Tulane Law Review. The Review will only accept submissions of this type for Articles appearing within the last three volumes of the Review(or with an abstract appearing on this Web site). See information and guidelines.
- J.D./M.A. candidate 2014, Latin American Studies, Tulane University; B.A. 2010, Tulane University.
- 88 Tul. L. Rev. 161 (2013)