{"title":"The Undocumented Alien Laborer and De Canas v. Bica: The Supreme Court Capitulates to Public Pressure","authors":"P. Nieto","doi":"10.5070/C730020923","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In a decision rendered this term, the United States Supreme Court in the case of DeCanas v. Bical has held Section 2805 of the California Labor Code2 constitutional, reversing a California Appellate Court decision to the contrary.' Section 2805(a) prohibits employers of that State from knowingly employing an alien who is not entitled to lawful residence if such employment would have an adverse effect on lawful resident workers. The grounds for the Court's decision included: (1) the regulation was not an unconstitutional regulation of immigration; 5 and (2) the provision was not invalid for the reason advanced by the lower court,' i.e., the regulation had been preempted under the supremacy clause of the Federal Constitution by the Immigration and Nationality Act.7 (Hereinafter cited INA).","PeriodicalId":411033,"journal":{"name":"Chicana/o-Latina/o Law Review","volume":"60 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chicana/o-Latina/o Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5070/C730020923","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
In a decision rendered this term, the United States Supreme Court in the case of DeCanas v. Bical has held Section 2805 of the California Labor Code2 constitutional, reversing a California Appellate Court decision to the contrary.' Section 2805(a) prohibits employers of that State from knowingly employing an alien who is not entitled to lawful residence if such employment would have an adverse effect on lawful resident workers. The grounds for the Court's decision included: (1) the regulation was not an unconstitutional regulation of immigration; 5 and (2) the provision was not invalid for the reason advanced by the lower court,' i.e., the regulation had been preempted under the supremacy clause of the Federal Constitution by the Immigration and Nationality Act.7 (Hereinafter cited INA).