The Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to overturn an appeals court decision that upheld Arizona's right to punish employers for hiring illegal immigrants.

The Arizona law gives the state the right to suspend or terminate business licenses.

"If you hire a person in this country illegally knowingly, you'll lose your license. First offense, 10 days. Second offense, revocation, never to do business in the state of Arizona again," said Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce, a Republican who helped draft the new controversial Arizona law that cracks down on illegal immigrants.

The Obama administration apparently worries letting that law stand would leave in place a precedent that states have a legitimate role in enforcing immigration laws – a notion the administration fiercely opposes.

"The argument that the Justice Department is making here, is you know, the fundamental question, which is where does state authority begin and end when it comes to federal immigration law?" said Benjamin Johnson, executive director of the American Immigration Council.

The Arizona statue relies on a law passed by the U.S. Congress in 1986, which made clear federal law preempts the states on immigration – but left one exception: "The provisions of this section preempt any state or local law imposing civil or criminal sanctions (other than through licensing and similar laws) upon those who employ unauthorized aliens."

"Congress said very clearly that licensing and similar laws can be used to impose consequences on employers who hire unauthorized aliens at the state level," said Kris Kobach, a law professor at the University of Missouri, Kansas City. "And that's exactly what Arizona did."

Oddly enough, the law in question was signed in 2007 by then-Gov. Janet Napolitano, now Obama's Homeland Security secretary.

Not only that, but the law was upheld by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

"And bear in mind that 9th Circuit is generally regarded as one of the more liberal circuits in the United States – and so the Obama administration, evidently, believes that the 9th Circuit views on this question is too conservative for this administration," Kobach said.

And this is yet another issue in the ongoing tug of war between Washington and the states, especially Arizona.

"The idea that states can't be involved in immigration law in any way is wrong," Johnson said. "The states have always had a role to play in immigration enforcement. The tricky part is defining where that authority begins and ends."

About 3,500 acres of southern Arizona along the Mexican border is closed to U.S. citizens due to increased violence in the region.

The closed off area stretches 80 miles along the border and includes part of the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge. It was closed in October 2006 "due to human safety concerns," the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said Wednesday in response to news reports on the closure.

Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu told Fox News that violence against law enforcement officers and U.S. citizens has increased in the past four months, further underscoring the need to keep the 80 miles of border land off-limits to Americans.

The refuge had been adversely affected by the increase in drug smugglers, illegal activity and surveillance, which made it dangerous for Americans to visit.

"The situation in this zone has reached a point where continued public use of the area is not prudent," said refuge manager Mitch Ellis.

“It’s literally out of control,” said Babeu. “We stood with Senator McCain and literally demanded support for 3,000 soldiers to be deployed to Arizona to get this under control and finally secure our border with Mexico. “

U.S. Fish and Wildlife officials have warned visitors in Arizona to beware of heavily armed drug smugglers and human traffickers.

“We need support from the federal government. It’s their job to secure the border and they haven’t done it,” said Babeu. “In fact, President Obama suspended the construction of the fence and it’s just simply outrageous.”

Signs have been posted warning Americans not to cross into the closed off territory south of Interstate 8. Babeu said the signs are not enough – he said Arizona needs more resources to help scale back the violence caused by the drug cartels.

“We need action. It’s shameful that we, as the most powerful nation on Earth, … can’t even secure our own border and protect our own families.”

What's the point of doing that?

They "did something" about the problem.

I suppose they think they did. If they're worried about heavily armed smugglers, however, they really didn't. 100 yards is less than half the effective range of pretty much any assault rifle.

Ah, yes, but they can make the claim and we all know that perception trumps reality these days.

Congratulations, they just created that perception while performing an utterly pointless action.

And they spent taxpayer dollars doing it!

Recent news items further falsely stated that the closure extends from the border 80-miles to the north. This distance is far from accurate. On October 6, 2006 roughly 3500 acres, or 0.02% of the Refuge, was closed to public access due to human safety concerns. At that time there was a marked increase in violence along the border due to human and drug trafficking. The closed area extends north from the international border roughly ¾ of a mile. A notice of the closure, including a map has been on the Refuge website since 2006.

No need to wonder. There's all kinds of drug-running through there. A good friend of mine is a Minuteman and he helps Border Patrol spot all kindsa people in that area. More often than not its illegal's backpacking weed up as payment for their passage to the U.S.

When they're spotted, they tend to just dump the pot and take off and they don't get caught. Of course, that pisses off the cartels who then go after them. From there, the problem kinda resolves itself, if you know what I mean.

What is it about that particular stretch that makes it attractive?

As for the "problem resolving itself".. that's not good.. and sounds messy.

Buddy: that whole valley used to be full of people crossing the border
Buddy: But its got a few reasons they go through there, 1 is highway 286
Buddy: which goes up to Three Points, which runs into highway 86, which is Ajo road
Buddy: so you can get on Ajo and drive right into Tucson
Buddy: once in Tucson you can go up I-10 to PHX, and then on to where ever
Buddy: the area is remote, not many people on the BA wild life refuge
Buddy: so chances of them being seen are low
Buddy: its mostly flat, there are mountains both to the east and west
Buddy: its in a valeey
Buddy: valley
Screeling: So enter in through a rather unpopulous area, hit a less-traveled highway and get into cities via small towns?
Buddy: but the valley floor is mostly flat, it's decent land to walk on (considering it is a desert)
Buddy: yea
Buddy: they can get picked up out there along the highways
Buddy: then driven in
Buddy: but some even keep walking north past 86
Buddy: 86 is about 40 miles north of the border
Buddy: some keep walking as far north as the Casa Grande area
Buddy: others cross further West, where the indian res is
Buddy: those ones I suspect cross, walk north about 10 miles, get picked up and driven to the north side of the indian res
Buddy: probably have safe houses and stuff
Buddy: then its only 20 miles from the northern part of the indian res to I-8
Buddy: and its all rocky, mountain desert terrain, nobody is out there
Buddy: The only people out there is a handful of Border Patrol, some BLM rangers, few Pinal Deputys, a few minutemen
Buddy: once they make it to I-8, there is another highway up to PHX, or they can take I-10
Screeling: Yeah, I remember driving past that
Buddy: at that point when they get on the highway, the only way their getting stopped is if DPS gets them
Buddy: or maybe BP crusers out on I-8 or I-10
Buddy: but there isnt many of them
Buddy: so if they go the speed limit, dont drive like idiots they are home free

Accusing Arizona of trying to "second guess" the federal government, the Justice Department on Tuesday filed a lawsuit challenging the state's immigration policy -- claiming the "invalid" law interferes with federal immigration responsibilities and "must be struck down."

In the suit, which names the state of Arizona as well as Gov. Jan Brewer as defendants, the Justice Department claims the federal government has "preeminent authority" on immigration enforcement and that the Arizona law "disrupts" that balance. It urges the U.S. District Court in Arizona to "preliminarily and permanently" prohibit the state from enforcing the law, which is scheduled to go into effect at the end of the month.

"Arizonans are understandably frustrated with illegal immigration, and the federal government has a responsibility to comprehensively address those concerns," Attorney General Eric Holder said in a written statement. "But diverting federal resources away from dangerous aliens such as terrorism suspects and aliens with criminal records will impact the entire country's safety. Setting immigration policy and enforcing immigration laws is a national responsibility. Seeking to address the issue through a patchwork of state laws will only create more problems than it solves."

The suit, which drew tough criticism from state lawmakers Tuesday, claimed the state law focuses only on getting rid of illegal immigrants and "ignores" other immigration objectives.

"The United States Constitution forbids Arizona from supplanting the federal government's immigration regime with its own state-specific immigration policy," the suit says. "A policy that, in purpose and effect, interferes with the numerous interests the federal government must balance."

Click here to read the lawsuit.

Arizona lawmakers slammed the administration over the suit Tuesday.

"This is the wrong direction to go," Rep. Harry Mitchell, D-Ariz., said in a statement, calling on the administration to devote its resources to border security.

Twenty House Republicans wrote a letter to Holder in protest of the decision. Republican Arizona Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl released a joint statement calling the suit "premature."

"The Obama administration has not done everything it can do to protect the people of Arizona from the violence and crime illegal immigration brings to our state. Until it does, the federal government should not be suing Arizona on the grounds that immigration enforcement is solely a federal responsibility," the senators said.

The court action comes just days after President Obama delivered a speech calling on Congress to tackle a comprehensive overhaul of the nation's immigration system. In the speech, he criticized Arizona's law and warned that national legislation is needed to prevent other states from following suit.

The president did not mention the lawsuit, but one had been widely expected for weeks. After the administration initially said it would take the law under review, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton revealed last month in an interview with a foreign television network that the administration intended to challenge the Arizona policy.

The Arizona law, passed in April, makes illegal immigration a state crime and requires local law enforcement to question anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant on their residency status.

Several civil rights and law enforcement officials lauded the administration's actions Tuesday.

Lucas Guttentag, director of the American Civil Liberties Union Immigrants' Rights Project, called it a "critical step" to undo Arizona's "unconstitutional usurpation of federal authority and its invitation to racial profiling."

"The administration's lawsuit is a cannon shot across the bow of other states that may be tempted to follow Arizona's misguided approach," he said. The ACLU had already filed a legal challenge, which Guttentag said it would continue to pursue.

The Arizona law touched off an intense national debate over immigration. The results of any court challenge would have wide-ranging implications, as a number of other states and jurisdictions have taken up tough immigration policies similar to Arizona's.

The Obama administration has meanwhile tried to use the law as the impetus to prod Congress into tackling an immigration bill. While Arizona lawmakers defend their law as necessary to patrol the border, Obama described it last week as "unenforceable" and a vehicle for civil rights abuse. He said a "national standard" is needed and that he won't "kick the can down the road" any longer.

Republicans bristled at the speech, though, and continued to urge the administration to better secure the border before tackling a comprehensive bill -- which would likely include a pathway to legal status for millions of illegal immigrants.

Brewer told Fox News in June that Arizona would not back down from its law.

"We'll meet them in court ... and we will win," she said, calling the administration's actions a