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.
3. Both sides can claim victory - and they'll be right
Both sides can claim victory in this case, maybe not legally, but from a political point of view. The Supreme Court has in a way given both sides rightful reasons to claim they have won.
Many states will be encouraged by upholding a key provision dealing with "show me your papers" and that may be an impetus for states to go ahead and move forward with their legislation. After all, by upholding that, it says that states do have some kind of role in the matter, they just have to avoid overstepping federal authority.
For the Obama administration and opponents of the Arizona law, they will be able to say that almost all of that state law was thrown out by the Supreme Court and federal authority remains supreme.
It is really more about political rhetoric and both sides saving face.
The justices know the law is nuanced. They don’t want to try to dictate from the bench or tell states or the government how to do their business. They’ve given the benefit of the doubt to all sides to work this out.
Sometimes that frustrates people because they want the clear and unequivocal answer from the Supreme Court, but the justices try to do that sparingly. When they can do as little as possible and still satisfy the U.S. Constitution, that is usually what they will try to do. They're very sensitive to being seen as legislating from the bench and really like to only step in and make sweeping opinions when an issue has gone too far. In this case, they've laid down the framework for both sides to work toward forming a practical and political standpoint.
4. Will this have implications for the presidential election?
While there is a lot of chatter right now about immigration, it isn't likely to be a huge national issue when it comes to November. Each state has its own policy, and for those that have their plans on hold because of the Supreme Court challenge, it will take probably a year to sort all of that out. It’s a question of timing. By the time the courts sort out which states and which policies are proper, it may very well be past Election Day.
Polls also continue to show that Americans don’t think what the Supreme Court does is as important as the economy. And they always rank near the bottom when it comes to what issues that are important. There's likely not much political mileage out of it.
Can the candidates make it into a larger issue?
For Obama and presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney, it might be one they take to a swing state or somewhere deeply affected by immigration such as Texas, Arizona and California, but it's hard to see it becoming a national strategy for a talking point. They may incorporate the effect illegal immigration has on the economy into their speeches, but that’s not going to be a key selling point. And there isn't as much voter angst about the issue as others.
5. Can we glean anything from this ruling, looking ahead to health care?
One of the first things you might have noticed about the opinion was that Justice Kennedy and Chief Justice John Roberts came down on the same side as the liberal side of the bench. It makes you wonder: What does it mean for health care?
Some people in the legal spheres have suggested that the chief justice's support for striking down most of Arizona’s law was curious and wondered whether it suggested something else was happening behind the scenes.
While some quipped that perhaps a vote for immigration was traded for health care, the justices don’t horse trade on those kinds of things. But it may signal their mind-set – an agreement when it comes to federal authority. Roberts has talked about respecting other branches even when it conflicts with state power in recent years.
And if there's one nexus between health care and immigration, it’s the issue of federal authority.
If you believe what the majority justices are saying in Monday's Arizona ruling, the federal government in a lot of areas has supremacy.
And that certainly has legal scholars on both sides wagging their tongues about whether Kennedy and Roberts might feel strongly enough about federal power that they could be persuaded to uphold the Affordable Care Act on health care in a very, very narrow ruling.
The question really remains: If Kennedy and Roberts affirmed federal supremacy for immigration, will they rule the same way for Congress on health care?
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertising practices | Advertise with us | About us | Work for us | Help
dumb article...it is the district attorneys and state attorney general's job will implement these rulings...
yes it is a very dumb artical writing by the white house staffs!
Dont see what the big deal is about checking someone immigration status when bein pulled over or on a domestic call. If the police pulled me over they will automatically check to see if I have warrants. What's the difference???
None, your absolutely right
The problem is that people use it as a excuse for their illegal immigrant status.
Imagine you've got brown skin and the police chief has told his guys to go out there and be aggressive on this. Now what do you think?
The difference is you will not be detained/arrested if are not carrying a statement from a court or a public office proving that you do not have any warrants on your name. You will be arrested/detained only if the officer finds out that there is a warrant on you.
The difference is the Hispanic vote is the hot vote to get right now, so the dems are pandering to them
The five things I've learned...
1. OBAMA 2012
2. OBAMA 2012
3. OBAMA 2012
4. OBAMA 2012
5. OBAMA 2012
so in essence you've learned nothing!
There will be many different articles written because so many policy wonks think we are not smart enough to understand the ruling. It is time the people get together and say enough is enough. State legislatures need to look at laws that are legitimate and not just a chance to undermine the laws of the country.
The Arizona border and other state borders that abut Mexico need new plans to stop illegal immigrants. Whether we like it or not the immigrants come here and take jobs that the rest of us would not do. We need to deal with that as well. The courts should be the last resort and would be if the leaders in the states and country demand that all rulings be made within the law.
You make some valid points, but americans used to perform these "jobs we won't do." We'd relearn to do these physically demanding jobs and might lose some weight in the process.
CBR, I agree with you that America needs to revamp its immigration process. However, I disagree with you that Americans will not do the jobs that immigrants are currently doing. If you live in Southern states, construction jobs, landscaping, cooks, house keeping are all being filled by illegal workers. These are a lot of jobs being taken away from Americans. It was so bad during the housing boom, you could go to a construction site and not see any Americans besides the foreman. Businesses get greedy with the low pay and they squeeze out American workers. It's not fair to Americans and its not fair to the immigrants. It needs to stop.
GOD BLESS OUR PRESIDENT!!!!! OBAMA 2012.
PRAISE BE TO ALLAH!!! VOTE OBAMA TO FURTHER DESTROY THE UNITED STATES
ALLAH AKHBAR!!!!!!!!!!!!
You know you cant' say that to the Obamamaniacs...especially if you're black or muslim, you're supposed to love obama even if he's done nothing for you!
and Obama's uncle wept.
as a child i ignored politics and thought the pundits were loons...... to be a be a child again....... ahhhh the memories!!!!!!
I won't vote for Obama in 2012 because of this and because he has done nothing to protect the environment and America's wildlife. I can't vote for a goper so I guess I'll vote independent or not vote at all – for the first time ever.
cry me a river
Agree, it is a sad day for America when there are NO choice for President.
If Barack Obama wins re-election, the national debt will stand at $22 trillion when he leaves office in Jan. 2017.
$11 trillion of debt built up from George Washington to George Bush.
$11 trillion of debt built up by a single President – Obama.
Not bad for one administration. You would think with that debt we would at least get medicare reform, tax reform, social security reform and real immigration reform. Yet the President has no plan for any of those.
Where you getting those numbers for 2017?
May be couple trillions more to provide the healthcare, change the immigrant status of millions Mexican.....
Your analysis is remarkably shortsighted. The deficit rises and falls – No one president can do THAT much damage over the course of 240ish years, even Bush43.
I WILL REMIND YOU OF THE TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS AMERICA HAS AND WILL CONTINUE TO SPEND ON THE WARS CREATED BY THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION. A LOST GENERATION OF AMERICAN MILITARY FAMILIES THAT HAVE PAID WITH THEIR BLOOD AND SUFFERING. OBAMA CAN'T COMPARE WITH THE LAST GUYS IN OFFICE WHEN IT COMES TO DESTROYING A GREAT COUNTRY.
The fact that Kennedy wrote the opinion in this case means he will not write for the majority on Obamacare. If Kennedy had sided with the 4 Libs on the Court to preserve the ACA, then he would have been writing the opinion as the "swing vote" and most tenured justice of the five. Thus, Chief Justice Roberts has written the majority opinion on Obamacare and that spells doom for the individual mandate AND the Medicaid expasion. The rest of it can't really stand absent those two pieces.
What's the big deal? If I am pulled over and cannot produce I.D., the police can hold me until they identify who I am. By the way, I am a white male... Can't see how this is any different than the "show me your papers"?
Here is what happen to me last week in a car accident in California:
AFTER THE ACCIDENT, THE DRIVER JUMP OUT HIS CAR, DEMANDING MY OFFSIDE DEAL. I SAID:"WAIT A MINUTE, LET CALL THE POLICE FOR REPORT AND OVERSIGHT THE INSURANCE INFORMATION , CAR REGISTRATION, AND DRIVER LICENSE EXCHANGE. HE THREAT ME AND I WENT BACK TO MY CAR TO CALL THE POLICE. IT TURNS OUT HE IS A ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT FROM SOUTH BORDER, HE RAN AWAY WHEN POLICE SHOW UP... AND I GOT TO FIX MY CAR UNDER UNINSURED COVERAGE.....
Brad there are a lot of illeagal Russians in Brooklyn NY. They belong to the Russian Mob SHould they be asked for their papers
Try asking all americans to carry their american passport or a birth certificate when they step out of their homes.. Sounds crazy and outrageous right??
End illegal imigration? no problem! Annex Mexico. Make them all U.S. citizens. Both parties can stop playing politics with the issue and everyone else can't complain about all the illegals because they'll all be legal.
If you annex Mexico, you will then need to build a fence between Mexico and Central America.
Correct, if someone pull over they need to have a valid driver license... if not hmm ...
The court upheld Federal Law but Obama has not implemented the law that he swore to uphold. Some immigrants waits years to get approved but Obama turns a blind eye when some just walk into the country without going through the Federal Process. Two standards but no equality.