← back to the Substrate Record
qid 1480 · law
Question: A state labor code provided that no employer in the state shall knowingly employ an alien who is not lawfully residing in the United States if such employment would have an adverse effect on lawful residents' right to work. A group of immigrant farm workers were continually refused employment contracts by the labor contractors in the state. Instead, the labor contractors had employed many alien workers since they would toil longer hours for less wages. The immigrant farm workers now bring suit in state court pursuant to the above-mentioned statutory provision. Which of the following determinations would most likely result as a consequence of the immigrant farm workers' lawsuit?
- The court would declare the statute unconstitutional as violative of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- The court would declare the statute unconstitutional as it violates the rights of the alien workers.
- The court would declare the statute constitutional since it is within the state's power to regulate employment.
- The court would declare the statute constitutional as within the realm of rights reserved to the states by the Eleventh Amendment.
- The court would declare the statute unconstitutional as it discriminates against non-residents.
- The court would declare the statute unconstitutional as it conflicts with federal labor laws.
- The court would declare the statute constitutional as it does not infringe on the rights of the immigrant workers.
- The court would declare the statute constitutional as it promotes the welfare of the state's residents.
- The court would declare the statute constitutional since the states are not preempted in the area of economic regulation of illegal aliens.
Our answer: I. The court would declare the statute constitutional since the states are not preempted in the area of economic regulation of illegal aliens. Source quote machine-checked (exact quote)
How it was answered
Stored method, replayed by code (kind: formula)
Current source
Legal Information Institute (Cornell), De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351 (1976)
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/424/351
Source quote machine-checked (exact quote)
Earlier version (superseded)
No public source has been found for this card yet (3 places checked internally).