Part A: Reading Comprehension

Directions: Read the following text. Answer the questions below each text by choosing A, B, C or D. Mark your answers on the ANSWER SHEET. (40 points)

Text 4

On a five to three vote, the Supreme Court knocked out much of Arizona’s immigration law Monday—a modest policy victory for the Obama Administration. But on the more important matter of the Constitution, the decision was an 8-0 defeat for the Administration’s effort to upset the balance of power between the federal government and the states.

In Arizona v. United States, the majority overturned three of the four contested provisions of Arizona’s controversial plan to have state and local police enforce federal immigration law. The Constitutional principles that Washington alone has the power to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization” and that federal laws precede state laws are noncontroversial. Arizona had attempted to fashion state policies that ran parallel to the existing federal ones.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the Court’s liberals, ruled that the state flew too close to the federal sun. On the overturned provisions the majority held that Congress had deliberately “occupied the field,” and Arizona had thus intruded on the federal’s privileged powers.

However, the Justices said that Arizona police would be allowed to verify the legal status of people who come in contact with law enforcement. That’s because Congress has always envisioned joint federal-state immigration enforcement and explicitly encourages state officers to share information and cooperate with federal colleagues.

Two of the three objecting Justices—Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas—agreed with this Constitutional logic but disagreed about which Arizona rules conflicted with the federal statute. The only major objection came from Justice Antonin Scalia, who offered an even more robust defense of state privileges going back to the Alien and Sedition Acts.

The 8-0 objection to President Obama turns on what Justice Samuel Alito describes in his objection as “a shocking assertion of federal executive power.” The White House argued that Arizona’s laws conflicted with its enforcement priorities, even if state laws complied with federal statutes to the letter. In effect, the White House claimed that it could invalidate any otherwise legitimate state law that it disagrees with.

Some powers do belong exclusively to the federal government, and control of citizenship and the borders is among them. But if Congress wanted to prevent states from using their own resources to check immigration status, it could. It never did so. The Administration was in essence asserting that because it didn’t want to carry out Congress’s immigration wishes, no state should be allowed to do so either. Every Justice rightly rejected this remarkable claim.

36. Three provisions of Arizona’s plan were overturned because they

[A]

disturbed the power balance between different states. 

[B]

overstepped the authority of federal immigration law. 

[C]

deprived the federal police of Constitutional powers. 

[D]

contradicted both the federal and state policies. 

37. On which of the following did the Justices agree, according to Paragraph 4?

[A]

Congress’s intervention in immigration enforcement. 

[B]

Federal officers’ duty to withhold immigrants’ information. 

[C]

States’ legitimate role in immigration enforcement. 

[D]

States’ independence from federal immigration law. 

38. It can be inferred from Paragraph 5 that the Alien and Sedition Acts

[A]

stood in favor of the states. 

[B]

supported the federal statute. 

[C]

undermined the states’ interests. 

[D]

violated the Constitution. 

39. The White House claims that its power of enforcement

[A]

is dependent on the states’ support. 

[B]

is established by federal statutes. 

[C]

outweighs that held by the states. 

[D]

rarely goes against state laws. 

40. What can be learned from the last paragraph?

[A]

Immigration issues are usually decided by Congress. 

[B]

The Administration is dominant over immigration issues. 

[C]

Justices wanted to strengthen their coordination with Congress. 

[D]

Justices intended to check the power of the Administration. 

Answers & Explanations (答案与深度解析)

试题精解

36. [B] overstepped the authority of federal immigration law.
【解析】细节原因题。第三段指出法官裁定亚利桑那州的三项条款被推翻的原因是：“the state flew too close to the federal sun”（该州飞得离联邦这颗太阳太近了）以及“Arizona had thus intruded on the federal’s privileged powers”（亚利桑那州因此侵犯了联邦的特权）。这明确说明亚利桑那州“越权（overstepped the authority）”了。故选 B。

37. [C] States’ legitimate role in immigration enforcement.
【解析】细节题。第四段指出：法官们（Justices）同意亚利桑那州警察“被允许核实人们的合法身份”。原因是国会一直设想的是“joint federal-state immigration enforcement（联邦-州联合执法）”。这说明法官们承认了州在移民执法中具有“合法的角色（legitimate role）”。故选 C。

38. [A] stood in favor of the states.
【解析】推理题。第五段提到，Scalia 法官提出了“an even more robust defense of state privileges going back to the Alien and Sedition Acts”（对州特权提供了更为强有力的辩护，这可以追溯到《外侨与煽动叛乱法》）。既然该法案被用来作为“捍卫州特权”的历史依据，说明该法案是“支持各州的（stood in favor of the states）”。故选 A。

39. [C] outweighs that held by the states.
【解析】细节推理题。第六段指出，白宫声称亚利桑那州的法律与其执法优先权相冲突，“even if state laws complied with federal statutes to the letter（即使州法律字斟句酌地遵守了联邦法规）”。白宫甚至声称它“could invalidate any otherwise legitimate state law（可以废除任何其他合法的州法律）”。这表明白宫认为其行政执法权“大于/超过（outweighs）”各州的权力。故选 C。

40. [D] Justices intended to check the power of the Administration.
【解析】主旨推断题。最后一段总结指出，行政当局（奥巴马政府）本质上是在主张：因为自己不想执行国会的移民意愿，所以任何州也不准执行。但是“Every Justice rightly rejected this remarkable claim（每位大法官都公正地驳回了这一惊人的主张）”。法官全票驳回行政当局的主张，其目的正是为了“牵制/制衡（check）行政部门的权力”。故选 D。

考研核心句型与长难句

【长难句剖析】

1. 经典的伊卡洛斯隐喻：
"Justice Anthony Kennedy... ruled that the state flew too close to the federal sun."
【解析】这里使用了一个极其优美的古希腊神话隐喻：伊卡洛斯戴着蜡做的翅膀飞得离太阳太近，导致翅膀融化而坠落。肯尼迪法官用此比喻亚利桑那州（state）的手伸得太长，离联邦政府（federal sun）的专属权力范围太近，从而遭到否决。

2. 让步状语与极致的行政扩张：
"The White House argued that Arizona’s laws conflicted with its enforcement priorities, even if state laws complied with federal statutes to the letter."
【解析】even if 引导让步状语从句；to the letter 意为“丝毫不差地/严格字面地”。白宫的逻辑是：即便你州政府完全符合联邦法律，只要跟我（行政部门）的“优先事项”冲突，你就是错的。这凸显了白宫权力的极度扩张。

3. 因果逻辑推断：
"The Administration was in essence asserting that because it didn’t want to carry out Congress’s immigration wishes, no state should be allowed to do so either."
【解析】in essence（本质上）作插入语；asserting 后接 that 引导的宾语从句。从句内部又包含一个 because 引导的原因状语从句。清晰地揭示了奥巴马政府的“霸道”逻辑，为最后一句法官们的集体驳回做了铺垫。