The Supreme Court ruled largely in favor of the U.S. on Arizona's immigration law, but it upheld the most controversial provision involving police checks on people's immigration status.
So what did we learn and what can we glean from their decision? Bill Mears, CNN's Supreme Court producer, breaks down the decision piece by piece:
1. Others states better tread carefully
By striking down three of the four major provisions and upholding the idea of federal authority on this issue in pretty sweeping comments, the Supreme Court has signaled other states with similar laws that they better tread carefully or make sure their laws do not to reach too far.
In Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion, his main point was that the national government has significant power to regulate immigration issues. And so that lets states know that while they have some place to play in the issue, the federal government still reigns supreme.
While the court didn’t tell Arizona and other states what they could and couldn’t do when they conduct a traffic stop - for example how long police can hold someone, whether the law would amount to racial profiling - this opinion is essentially guidance moving forward. Their opinion was certainly not a complete smackdown of Arizona's law. Instead, it left some things pretty ambiguous.
2. The one provision upheld could be challenged again
The provision that was upheld by all eight ruling justices – commonly called the "show me your papers" provision - allows local law enforcement, when performing other state law enforcement functions, to check on the immigration status of those people they stop for another reason. That part was upheld because the justices said it was complementing existing federal policy. That's as long as police weren’t singling people out specifically for racial reasons. The court essentially said that if police stop someone properly, or are involved in a domestic dispute, it was perfectly proper to at least check an immigration status and then consult with federal officials.
But in upholding that provision, the court was very careful to say that depending on how this is implemented, it could very well be overturned one day. The overall lawsuit brought against the law is a facial challenge, which means it was being opposed and believed to be unconstitutional before it went into effect. What the court is saying when it comes to the "show me your papers provision" is that the justices are going to uphold it for now, allow Arizona to implement it and depending on how they enforce it, deal with it later.
If in the future a challenge is brought claiming that people are being detained for an extended time or racial profiling is occurring, it could be challenged in the state and federal courts again, now that it can actually be implemented as a law. The justices have essentially said they will give Arizona the benefit of the doubt that they will enforce this in a way that meets a constitutional muster test.
It’s a signal to other states that if they are going to have similar provisions, they too have to be careful.
CNNMoney.com struck a nerve with readers Monday. A story about savings - or lack thereof - reported that 28% of Americans have no emergency savings. So we had to ask: Where's the money?
Commenters had lots of opinions on how people spend their money and why they aren't saving.
jacalder: No money to save but somehow there's always money for beer, cigs and cell phones. It's called priorities. Too many Americans refuse to grow up.jaxbeach904: Not a cent saved, yet still have cell phones, big screen tvs, internet,
afford cigarettes and alcohol, designer clothes and shoes. Yeah, I cant
understand why they dont have any money saved!Bojak: The biggest barrier to saving is having nothing to save.
The CNN Facebook community chimed in talk about just where all their money is going. Here's a sampling of what people have said. FULL POST
Editor's note: This post is part of the Overheard on CNN.com series, a regular feature that examines interesting comments and thought-provoking conversations posted by the community.
The U.S. Supreme Court has struck down key parts of an Arizona law that sought to deter illegal immigration. The court also let stand a controversial provision that lets police check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws if "reasonable suspicion" exists that the person is in the United States illegally. Some readers kept metaphorical scorecards weighing each side's views about heavier enforcement and possible consequences. With all this debate, are there points where most people can agree?
Some of our readers said Arizona got a raw deal.
Bob Jones: "So Arizona is screwed. The Fed won't enforce its own laws and Arizona is told to sit down and shut up and take it with a smile. Thanks for nothing, SCOTUS. This is the first step. Eventually the people will have had enough."
eddiev5: "I think public opinion polls pretty much show time and time again what people are looking for. And it has nothign to do with the rhetoric you hear from the Democratic Party. On this issue, the Republicans are correct."
Gus Seals: "Actually this is a win, it builds a bigger picture over time how the feds are cooking the books on the number of illegals. The state can use the federal resources to check legal status so says the court. In the long run if the state says we stopped ten thousand illegals and the feds refused to do their job, it is not going to look good politically."
For many, Arizona got a big win.
Chaz: "I love how CNN tries to make this seem like Arizona lost here. They got exactly what they wanted and I say good for them. I have a very hard time with commenters from the East Coast who are just so full of 'forward thinking' opinions, but who don't really have a dog in this fight. This is a serious problem for those states who face these issues every day and I'm glad the ability to check a person's legal status is in place. I liked Governor Brewer's laws, as the state of Arizona faces terrible crime and security issues, due to the illlegal aliens. If the Feds can't protect the Arizona citizens, who can? I like the idea of 'self deportation'. The Mexicans think The AMERICAN DREAM is about getting on the government dole. It is about 'freedoms,' not breaking laws. Entering this country illegally was your first mistake. You broke a federal law. If you can't come in the legal way, leave."
Others were excited to see that the state didn't get everything it wanted.
JimmyNelson: "SCOTUS just smacked Jan Brewers hand.. and I like it."
This commenter said they thought Arizona's law is unacceptable. FULL POST
The CNN Daily Mash-up is a roundup of some of the most interesting, surprising, curious, poignant or significant items to appear on CNN.com in the past 24 hours. We top it with a collection of the day's most striking photographs from around the world.
The Supreme Court's split ruling on Arizona's immigration law, known as SB 1070, has both sides claiming victory and each side saying the other had better watch its step.
Today's decision by the U.S. Supreme Court is a victory for the rule of law. It is also a victory for the 10th Amendment and all Americans who believe in the inherent right and responsibility of states to defend their citizens. After more than two years of legal challenges, the heart of SB 1070 can now be implemented in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.
I am pleased that the Supreme Court has struck down key provisions of Arizona's immigration law. What this decision makes unmistakably clear is that Congress must act on comprehensive immigration reform. A patchwork of state laws is not a solution to our broken immigration system - it's part of the problem.
Editor's note: We're live blogging from the Supreme Court today as the nation waits to see whether the justices will hand down rulings on the controversial health care and immigration laws. You can follow along below as CNN Supreme Court Producer Bill Mears and Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin get the latest details live from the court as well as analysis when, and if, the major rulings come on Monday. Watch live coverage and analysis now on CNN TV, CNN’s mobile apps and http://cnn.com/live.
[Updated at 1:18 p.m. ET] Attorney General Eric Holder issued the following statement reacting to the Court's ruling:
“I welcome the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down major provisions of Arizona’s S.B. 1070 on federal preemption grounds. Today’s ruling appropriately bars the State of Arizona from effectively criminalizing unlawful status in the state and confirms the federal government’s exclusive authority to regulate in the area of immigration.
While I am pleased the Court confirmed the serious constitutional questions the government raised regarding Section 2, I remain concerned about the impact of Section 2, which requires law enforcement officials to verify the immigration status of any person lawfully stopped or detained when they have reason to suspect that the person is here unlawfully. As the Court itself recognized, Section 2 is not a license to engage in racial profiling and I want to assure communities around this country that the Department of Justice will continue to vigorously enforce federal prohibitions against racial and ethnic discrimination. We will closely monitor the impact of S.B. 1070 to ensure compliance with federal immigration law and with applicable civil rights laws, including ensuring that law enforcement agencies and others do not implement the law in a manner that has the purpose or effect of discriminating against the Latino or any other community.
We will also work to ensure that the verification provision does not divert police officers away from traditional law enforcement efforts in order to enforce federal immigration law, potentially impairing local policing efforts and discouraging crime victims, including children of non-citizens, victims of domestic violence, and asylum seekers, from reporting abuses and crimes out of fear of detention or deportation. We will continue to use every federal resource to protect the safety and civil rights of all Americans.”
[Updated at 12:31 p.m. ET] President Barack Obama has weighed in on the court decision, praising that some parts were struck down, but adding that he was concerned about the provision that remained. His statement is in full below:
"I am pleased that the Supreme Court has struck down key provisions of Arizona's immigration law. What this decision makes unmistakably clear is that Congress must act on comprehensive immigration reform. A patchwork of state laws is not a solution to our broken immigration system – it’s part of the problem.
At the same time, I remain concerned about the practical impact of the remaining provision of the Arizona law that requires local law enforcement officials to check the immigration status of anyone they even suspect to be here illegally. I agree with the Court that individuals cannot be detained solely to verify their immigration status. No American should ever live under a cloud of suspicion just because of what they look like. Going forward, we must ensure that Arizona law enforcement officials do not enforce this law in a manner that undermines the civil rights of Americans, as the Court’s decision recognizes. Furthermore, we will continue to enforce our immigration laws by focusing on our most important priorities like border security and criminals who endanger our communities, and not, for example, students who earn their education – which is why the Department of Homeland Security announced earlier this month that it will lift the shadow of deportation from young people who were brought to the United States as children through no fault of their own.
I will work with anyone in Congress who’s willing to make progress on comprehensive immigration reform that addresses our economic needs and security needs, and upholds our tradition as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. And in the meantime, we will continue to use every federal resource to protect the safety and civil rights of all Americans, and treat all our people with dignity and respect. We can solve these challenges not in spite of our most cherished values – but because of them. What makes us American is not a question of what we look like or what our names are. What makes us American is our shared belief in the enduring promise of this country – and our shared responsibility to leave it more generous and more hopeful than we found it."
[Updated at 12:08 p.m. ET] In regard to similar laws that have been enacted in other states, CNN Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin predicts “legal trench warfare on all these laws.”
The “mixed nature of the verdict” makes it impossible to say if these laws or constitutional or unconstitutional, so judges in the future will have to go through each law provision by provision to determine constitutionality.
The ruling guarantees American will see more cases out of other states in the future,” Toobin said.
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer issued the following statement after the Supreme Court ruled on her state's controversial immigration law:
U.S. Supreme Court Decision Upholds Heart of SB 1070
“Today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court is a victory for the rule of law. It is also a victory for the 10th Amendment and all Americans who believe in the inherent right and responsibility of states to defend their citizens. After more than two years of legal challenges, the heart of SB 1070 can now be implemented in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.
“While we are grateful for this legal victory, today is an opportunity to reflect on our journey and focus upon the true task ahead: the implementation and enforcement of this law in an even-handed manner that lives up to our highest ideals as American citizens. I know the State of Arizona and its law enforcement officers are up to the task. The case for SB 1070 has always been about our support for the rule of law. That means every law, including those against both illegal immigration and racial profiling. Law enforcement will be held accountable should this statute be misused in a fashion that violates an individual’s civil rights.
“The last two years have been spent in preparation for this ruling. Upon signing SB 1070 in 2010, I issued an Executive Order directing the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board (AZ POST) to develop and provide training to ensure our officers are prepared to enforce this law efficiently, effectively and in a manner consistent with the Constitution. In recent days, in anticipation of this decision, I issued a new Executive Order asking that this training be made available once again to all of Arizona’s law enforcement officers. I am confident our officers are prepared to carry out this law responsibly and lawfully. Nothing less is acceptable.
“Of course, today’s ruling does not mark the end of our journey. It can be expected that legal challenges to SB 1070 and the State of Arizona will continue. Our critics are already preparing new litigation tactics in response to their loss at the Supreme Court, and undoubtedly will allege inequities in the implementation of the law. As I said two years ago on the day I signed SB 1070 into law, ‘We cannot give them that chance. We must use this new tool wisely, and fight for our safety with the honor Arizona deserves.’”
The Supreme Court may soon rule on the constitutionality of President Obama's health care law. Once a ruling is issued, watch CNN.com Live for the reaction and fallout.
Today's programming highlights...
Continuing coverage: Tropical Storm Debby tracker
10:00 am ET - Postal workers announce hunger strike - The struggling U.S. Postal Service is facing big cuts in service and personnel power, but some employees are not giving up without a fight. They will announce a hunger strike in an effort to save the USPS.
Attorneys for Monsignor William Lynn will return to court Monday to argue that the cleric, who was convicted of child endangerment, be put under house arrest rather than jailed until his sentencing in August.
Lynn was found guilty Friday of one count of child endangerment, the first time a U.S. church leader has been convicted of such a charge.
He was found not guilty on a second count of endangerment and on a charge of conspiring to protect a priest accused of abuse.
The jury was unable to bring a verdict against his co-defendant, the Rev. James Brennan, who was charged with the attempted rape of a 14-year-old altar boy and endangering the welfare of a child.
Lynn was taken into custody after the verdict Friday, when the judge revoked his bail. His lawyer, Jeffrey Lindy, criticized the decision not to let his client remain free on bond prior to sentencing, calling it "an unspeakable miscarriage of justice (for) a 61-year-old man with no prior record and long established ties to the community."
He is set to be sentenced August 13, court officials said, and could face up to seven years in prison for his conviction on a third-degree felony.FULL STORY
A Malaysian court has ruled that an Iranian man suspected of being involved with a series of bombs that went off in Bangkok in February can be extradited to Thailand.
Masoud Sedaghatzadeh is wanted by the Thai authorities for his alleged involvement in the Bangkok blasts along with several other Iranians.
It is not yet clear when Sedaghatzadeh will be extradited, as he plans to file an application to a higher court in Malaysia, seeking his release from prison.
The explosions in Bangkok did not cause any deaths, but the Thai authorities have said they were intended for Israeli diplomats. The devices used explosive materials that are not available in Thailand and were most likely smuggled in, the police have said.
The Bangkok blasts came a day after a device attached to an Israeli Embassy van in New Delhi exploded, and another device, found on an embassy car in Tbilisi, the capital of Georgia, was safety detonated.
Israeli officials blamed Iran for the attacks, but Tehran has denied the accusations.FULL STORY
Euphoric jubilation spilled into a second day Monday in Cairo's Tahrir Square, where revelers celebrated the election of Egypt's first democratically elected president.
But with the hopes of the Egyptian revolution resting on President-Elect Mohamed Morsi's shoulders, the former Muslim Brotherhood member faces an array of challenges both at home and abroad.
For the moment, the presidency is largely a figurehead position as Egypt's Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) maintains widespread control over the country - just as it has since Hosni Mubarak's 30-year rule succumbed to a popular revolt last year.FULL STORY
North Korea has reacted angrily to the use of its flag during live-fire drills by South Korea and the United States, calling it "a grave provocative act."
The comments from Pyongyang on Sunday came after the allies held military drills last week less than 50 kilometers (30 miles) away from the North Korean border, involving more than 2,000 military personnel.
An unidentified North Korean foreign ministry spokesman accused South Korea and the United States of firing "live bullets and shells" at the flag, according to a report by the state-run Korean Central News Agency.
The act was "the most vivid expression of their hostile policy," the spokesman said.
The North Korean flag was put on an elevated hill but was not directly used as a target during the exercises, an official for the South Korean Defense Ministry said, declining to be identified.
"It was used only as a symbol of North Korean territory and the drill was a defensive one," he added.FULL STORY
Saudi Arabia will let its female athletes compete in the Olympics for the first time, its embassy in London said.
Until now, Saudi Arabia was one of three countries that did not allow women to participate in the games.
The other two - Qatar and Brunei - also reversed course this year and said they will send athletes to the London games that begin July 27.
"The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia wishes to reaffirm its support for the sublime meanings reflected by Olympic Games and the cherished values of excellence, friendship and respect that they represent," the Saudi embassy in London said in a statement, announcing its decision.
The statement added that women who qualify for the games will be allowed to participate.
The decision is a rare concession for a kingdom where women are banned from driving.
They also cannot vote or hold public office, though that will change in 2015.
Women in Saudi Arabia also cannot marry, leave the country, go to school or open bank accounts without permission from a male guardian, who usually is the father or husband. Much of public life is segregated by gender.
When it came to sports, female athletes were barred from the Olympic games because they would be participating in front of a mixed-gender crowd.
The Saudi embassy did not say what prompted the kingdom to change its mind.FULL STORY
The U.S. House could, for the first time in history, vote this week to cite a sitting U.S. attorney general for contempt of Congress.
The House Oversight Committee recommended the vote against Attorney General Eric Holder last week after he refused to hand over all of the requested documents in its investigation of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms' controversial Fast and Furious gun-running sting.
The vote came after President Barack Obama asserted executive privilege over some documents sought by the panel. The White House move means the Department of Justice can withhold some of the documents.
House Oversight Committee chairman Darrell Issa said Sunday a letter being sent to Obama will outline why his invocation of executive privilege is either "overbroad, or simply wrong."
The letter will be sent by Monday, Issa, R-California, told ABC's "This Week."FULL STORY
In accepting the Nobel Peace Prize last year, Yemeni activist Tawakkol Karman thanked women of the Arab world for her medal. Without their struggle to win equal rights, she would not be there, she said.
The greatest challenge in that quest is not religion but the lack of economic and social development and a dearth of perceived security, said a Gallup Poll released Monday.
"The idea that coming in with a secular liberal social program as the solution to fixing how societies view women isn't supported by the evidence," said Dalia Mogahed, executive director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies.
She said the women in the Middle East have very much the same priorities as women in America. They want to lead prosperous lives.
"The research shows that human development and overall education and economic empowerment are the most important interventions we can make to help women's rights," Mogahed said.
The Gallup report urged policymakers to allow Arab women's own priorities to guide efforts at gender equality.
Gallup conducted multiple surveys of 1,000 people each time in Egypt, Bahrain, Syria, Tunisia, Yemen and Libya.FULL STORY