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
Who will be next to show proper paperwork to authorities? It's a slippery
slope when it starts with one group, and can easily expand to other groups
of people to show they "belong" where they are.
Hold the phone. "we're going to break it down for you..." Now, that's the problem. C'mon people: think for yourselves! Don't rely on the 4th Estate to "break it down" for you!
One thing we know for certain in regards to immigration:
Obama had a chance to deal with it once and for all when he had control of both the house and senate and he did NOT do it.
This says only one of two things are true or they could both be true as they are not mutually excluisive:
#1 – Obama didn't have the votes even with a Dem controlled congress so he didn't want to embarass himself and let the world know that even Democrats have sense when it comes to illegal immigration and defending our borders.
#2 – Obama DID want to embarass the Republicans and had ZERO interest in working anything out with them because if Republicans are allowed to claim ANY cooperation in regards to giving illegals a path to citizenship Obama and Democrats won't have another monolithic voting block in hispanics.
@ Squad - What is the republican position on illegals? Is it "self-deport?"
WHAT YOU CLAIM IS ONLY WHAT YOU THINK, BELIEVE OR HAVE BEEN MISINFORMED BY FAUX NEWS OR THE NEW REPUBLIC NEWS, YOU ARE NOT INSIDE THE HEAD OF PRESIDENT OBAMA, SO YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT HE THOUGHT OR PLANNED.
IN PHSYCOLOGICAL TERMS YOU ARE FUSSING EMOTIONALLY TO YOUR RADICAL CONSERVATIVE LEADERS. FUSSION DENOTES INSECURITY, FEAR, NAIVETY, IRRATIONAL ANGER, REFUSING TO ACCEPT REALITY OF HEAR TO REASONS THAT MAKE SENSE. SO CONTRADICTING YOUR ILOGICAL ACCUSSATIONS IS A WASTE OF TIME. YOU ARE ALSO WASTING YOURS IN RIGID DENIAL OF REALITY , OR ARE GETTING BRIBED BY YOUR PARTY.
they only ruled like this so that when they strike down obamacare, the court will be seen to be free of judicial activism as a result of the immigration ruling......
indeed a very wise court...protecting its own pillar of government.
You're sweating this out, aren't you? As well you should be, the justices don't do trade-offs. Know this, the time has come for everyone to have healthcare, and the Affordable Health Care Act will be upheld!
I DO NOT WHAT YOU CLAIM IS GOING TO HAPPEN. PARTS MAY BE ANNULLED, BUT THE BASIC LAW WILL STAY UNDER FEDERAL RULE
THE SUPREME COURT OFTEN FINDS A MIDDLE GROUND THAT MAY NOT PLEASE MANY, BUT THAT UPHOLDS PUBLIC HEALTH
RATHER, IT SEEMS THE ROYAL RULE OF THE PRIVATE SECTOR IS GOING AWAY:) IT IS TIME WE SEVENTIES PEOPLE TAKE OVER, FINALLY 
ALSO PREPARE THIS DEMOCRACY FOR NEXT EDUCATED YOUNG GENERATIONS 
))))
Canada has universal health care, gay marriage, legalized pot, stricter hand gun laws, and their banks weren't involved in Wall Street's derivatives Ponzi scheme that destroyed the world economy.
Are they smarter than us?
Yes.
HOW IS THE CRIME RATE IN CANADA? HIGHER OR LOWER THAN HERE IN AMERICA? I JUST DO NOT KNOW.
That Obama is a communist, socialist, etc etc etc....is ALL birther ultra right-wing T-Party garbage that no one listen to anymore AND the very reason why they have fallen by the wayside....too radical... they want a man shot by firing squad for speeding 40 in a 35.
ACTUALLY , PRESIDENT OBAMA MAJORED IN LAW AND THEN GOT HIRED BY WALL STREET AS A LEGAL COUNSEL. HE WORKED THERE FOR TWO YEARS!
SOCIALIST? NOT AT ALL. A SOCIALIST WOULD HAVE ATTENDED A MOSCOW UNIVERSITY, OR A CHINESE ONE. OR TRAVELED TO LIVE IN SOME SOCIALIST OR COMMIE COUNTRY.
PRESIDENT OBAMA INSTEAD ONLY TRAVELED TO HAWAII AND HIS LATE DAD'S COUNTRY. THEN HE RETURNED TO AMERICA WHERE HE WORKED TO RESTORE LOW INCOME NEIGHBORHOODS IN CHICAGO. THEN HE RAN FOR CONGRESS AND LATER FOR PRESIDENT. READ HIS BIOGRAPHY.
NOT THAT IT WILL DISSUADE YOU. STILL YOU MAY BE STILL SAVED BY THE TRUTH. ? THAT I DO NOT KNOW.
Why do illegals ger special treatment just because their crime is hurting anyone? I don't hurt anyone when i drive over the speed limit but i still get a ticket and i still have to pay it and i knew the potential consequences of driving over the speed limit, just like illegals know the potential consequences of being here illegally. And just like me, they should have to pay for breaking the law even though they didnt hurt anyone while breaking it.
I can only guess that you must be the victim of lead poising as a child. What you say is stupid.
Why do illegals get special treatment just because their crime is hurting anyone? I don't hurt anyone when i drive over the speed limit but i still get a ticket and i still have to pay it and i knew the potential consequences of driving over the speed limit, just like illegals know the potential consequences of being here illegally. And just like me, they should have to pay for breaking the law even though they didnt hurt anyone while breaking it.
The whole situation is because the Reps and Dems have given illegal immigration little more than lip service for decades.
While the Arizona law is a piece of garbage that would and will make life hard on good law abiding legal citizens and residents it is also a last gasp attempt by the state to patch up what the fed has failed to address properly for the last 20 years.
As long as the fed continues playing games we all lose...as usual.
Prepare for your free speech to be taken away. Do your best to be as independent as possible and do not hire illegal immigrants no matter what race they are. Don't support them and they will go away. This will be flagged as a racist comment. If I say let people come here all day and don't worry about being a citizen then it will be Ok.
Just raided some panties from the laundry room from a FINE 19 year old in my local apartment laundry room.
the answers to 4 and 5 are easy. before obama decided it was okay for the children of enemy combatants to remain in the united states, i would have said voting for romney would be an impossibility. but i've had it, and now voting for romney is exactly what i'll be doing. even though i'm sure his primary agenda will be to increase the divide between the one percent and the rest of us.
and number 5 reiterates what has become painfully apparent, the court rules strictly on partisanship, rather than rule of law.
Children of enemy combatants... huh? Do you seriously mean to say that you consider illegal aliens to be enemy combatants? If so, you are remarkably twisted and scary.
Yeah, right. Sure you were going to vote for Obama. LOL
Anyone who views Mexicans as enemy combatants wasn't going to vote for a black man anyways.
Great, another bed wetter willing to vote against his economic self interests because Obama is "letting the children of enemy combatants" stay here. You know that is patently rediculous, but the GOP strategy is 100% based on fear, so I expect nothing less.
Enemy combatants eh?, you mean the thousands of men and women of hispanic descent fighting and dying for the US armed forces in countries like IRAQ and Afghanistan? That kind of enemy combatant? I have no doubts that you don't want to be bothered by facts, you are just here trolling and spewing your poison and trying to make it look like you have evaluated this issue objectively but you are not fooling anyone. Now go get Foxed !!!
Why should anyone here illegally expect not to be scrutinized? Our leniency only encourages illegal immigration.
Guest, the problem has never been about "scrutinizing" illegal aliens. It has been about the fact that if you want to harass the illegals, you will also be harassing *actual citizens* - because they don't look different from illegals. And until now, American citizens have not been required to carry ID proving their citizenship - at least not 24/7.
Imagine if *you* were stopped by an Arizona cop at a traffic stop and asked to PROVE you were a citizen. Your drivers' license won't cut it. You'd probably been detained... unless of course you are white. And therein lies the law's problem.
You totally miss the point guest. I am an American citizen and have lived in this country for 43 of my 57 years. Came in here legally. Now I have to put up with some idiot cop asking me for my proof of residency simply because of my accent or because I look hispanic?. Of course, that doesn't bother you even a bit. How about this, my daughters are both US born but, because they look hispanic now they are supposed to accept this kind of treatment from the authorities as some kind of second class citizens. See the picture yet? If you don't , then you are hopeless !!
march 24 2009
Janet Napolitano, Deputy Secretary of State Jim Steinberg and Deputy Attorney General David Ogden, talk about gun running
c-spanvideo org program /284798-4 march 24 2009
Show me your papers? I like to see that happen in Los Angeles! Special Order 40 tell LAPD officers to NOT ask about anyones immigration status. The idea is if they ask, the illegal population will not report crimes because they would be afraid of deportation.
Good point. In order to protect the rest of us from violent criminals, we have to have crimes reported. So... if this law makes illegals less likely to report crimes (and it will!), it harms the rest of us in a real way.
Yes, illegals are here *illegally*. But if investigating them makes me LESS SAFE, I want less investigation.