argue that the Ordinance is expressly preempted by any provision of federal law. 4 . The dissenting opinion’s assertion that the Supreme Court rejected this analysis in DeCanas, confuses the field and conflict preemption inquiries. The Court in DeCanas noted that § 1324’s then-exemption of employment from the defin 8021265 (D.Ariz. Sept. 5, 2012) (enjoining Arizona law creating state crimes for, inter alia, transporting and harboring aliens as preempted by § 1324). The Eleventh Circuit held, as we do here, that failing to limit harboring to activity facilitating evasion from federal authorities was an "untenable expansion of the federal harboring provision.” Alabama, 691 F.3d at 1288. But see Keller v. City of Fremont, No. 12-1702, 719 F.3d 931, 2013 WL 3242111 (8th Cir. June 28, 2013) (<HOLDING>). 10 . As previously noted, an occupancy
holding that the application of an element of a state law tort is preempted if in holding a defendant hable for the conduct  there would be conflict with federal patent law holding that a local ordinance prohibiting rental housing for illegal aliens was not field preempted and did not conflict with the federal removal process and where the ordinance specified it did not prohibit conduct expressly permitted by federal law did not conflict with federal antiharboring law holding that  1324 preempted a local ordinance prohibiting renting housing to illegal aliens holding that common law misrepresentation claims were not preempted because they did not conflict with a fmvss holding city ordinance preempted by state law because ordinance prohibited act specifically allowed under state law