Whether the Supremacy Clause and federal immigration law preempt a state court from imposing maintenance obligations solely because a spouse lacks work authorization under federal immigration laws

As this Court confirmed in Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012), regulating immigration is an exclusively federal prerogative. By contrast, spousal support obligations (“maintenance”) traditionally arise under state family law. All individuals, regardless of immigration status, deserve equal treatment in dissolution proceedings. However, when maintenance determinations rest solely on a spouse’s lack of federal work authorization—an area governed exclusively by federal immigration law—state courts risk impermissibly encroaching upon the federal domain. This distinction between obligations flowing naturally from marriage, on the one hand, and those effectively predicated on immigration status, on the other, is critical. Clarifying the boundary ensures that state courts do not impose financial duties based solely on conditions set by federal immigration policy. Such overreach undermines the Constitution’s careful allocation of authority between the states and the federal government. The questions presented are: 1. Whether the Supremacy Clause and federal immigration law preempt a state court from imposing maintenance obligations solely because a spouse lacks work authorization under federal immigration laws. 2. Whether the Supremacy Clause and federal immigration law preempt a state court from using a spouse’s immigration status to create obligations under state law that would not otherwise exist. ()