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
Doesn't matter... it's the end of an Empire. America is in decline, and immigration will decline. The U.S.A. rose quickly in the whole timeline of history, and fell faster than any Empire in history. Self-destructed really, it is sad.
I find it "interesting" that so many people can't grasp the concept that if you are here illegally, you are committing a crime. You don't have to commit another crime to be a criminal; you already qualify. This has nothing to do with skin color. It has to do with living by the law. I find it sad that we have waited until we have 10-12 million illegals before we wake-up and realize that we have a problem. The far left wants completely open boarders, and the far right wants cheap labor, and most Mexicans want the south-west back! Huston, we have a problem! But we are reaping what we have sown.
technically it's not a criminal matter, but a civil matter. that means you you can't necessarily be arrested, but still against the law.
Denny, these people cannot be reasoned with. They WANT something, and will justify it in any irrational terms they so desire. I think people on the right are making a mistake even trying to engage the left in dialogue, because reasonable propositions do not in the end change what they WANT.
I'm naturalized American....In spite of I'm 6'2", my skin is brown, and my beard, eyes and hair are dark...It's clear I do not match with the caucasian profile.....I'm a Civil Engineer, law abiding citizen; my American born son is in the military in Fort Braggs and my American born daugther is still in High School. They look alike me......So why- I repit- why we have to obey a racist police officer (there are hundreds of them in the 50 States) telling us that we have to show him our American citizenship, just because we have burned a tail light ? NO WAY!!!! BTW, I´m not Latino, so don´t shout me to comeback to Mexico.
Do you have a license? When they run it if you get pulled over, they can see if there is a problem, just like every other American. Do you think someone here illegally will have a valid driver's license?
Once again....I find it "interesting" that so many people can't grasp the concept that if you are here illegally, you are committing a crime. You don't have to commit another crime to be a criminal; you already qualify. This has nothing to do with skin color. It has to do with living by the law. I find it sad that we have waited until we have 10-12 million illegals before we wake-up and realize that we have a problem. The far left wants completely open boarders, and the far right wants cheap labor, and most Mexicans want the south-west back! Huston, we have a problem! But we are reaping what we have sown.
What the United States Supreme Court said was.., "Walk softly and don't carry a big stick." A clear warning for all states.. Mike in Montana
What the SCOTUS said was that to fix this problem you have to get OBAMA out of the White House.
The Ariz. governor loses 3 out of 4 and says she won. No wonder that state should be sucking big time in math.
*The integrity of the President’s statements regarding his knowledge and potential involvement in “Fast and Furious” is now drawing close scrutiny.
*The timing of the assertion of “executive privilege” coming over a year after the launch of the investigation is the subject of countless news reports, blogs, and newspaper columns.
I believe this clearly politically-motivated action on the President’s part will ultimately backfire.
Liberal “progressives” are calling the Contempt of Congress charges against Attorney General Eric Holder an “election year political witch hunt,” but those looking for truth and accountability now suspect a massive cover-up.
President Barack Obama, who has repeatedly promised the American people a transparent administration, once again denied Congress and the American people access to vital information.
This writing is horrible. The headline says that there were 5 things we learned. And then provides only 3, with 2 questions. You have to wonder if these writers can even tie their own shoe laces.
our own fascist police state government hates the honest hard working people of this country. it loves the illegals and freeloaders.. the government has become and enemy of the honest people that contribute to society.
Agree. It's time for American revolution 2.0
One thing we learned is that this president doesn't care one lick about the average American and would sell him out in heartbeat to get the vote of an illegal.
Obama/Burden 2012 – Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you.
That should be the slogan, we pay for the federal government, it owes us, not the other way around. Jfk had it backwards
Apparently the states have the ability to perform a job the federal government cannot ( either because it is incompetent or malign ) This is the STUPIDEST thing in the world and coming from the STUPIDEST president in history.
Do all mexician have to have papers whether they were born here or not?
As soon as a cop (who is frustrated with this law) keep looking wealthy white people. Pull them over demand papers because he thinks they maybe Canadian. Rich fat white guy goes to jail for the night. After that that happens "Show me your papers" will be dead and buried
So ask EVERYONE their immigration status. Problem solved.
Amendment 4 – Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Do you really want to open that can of worms and be pulled over just so an officer can CHECK your papers?
Or have a officer enter your home at ANY time for the same reasons....?
so you will have no problem carrying around your birth certificate everywhere you go
So problem solved, put a check box on our drivers licenses or state issued identification that states valid us citizen. I have zero problem with that and cannot fathom the stupidity of those that oppose.
No cat lover that wont work for me, The Latins that want this practice stopped can turn in the illegals they harbor from justice. When the US can trust that its latin population is loyal to America and not their former nations or their nationality we can talk about stopping search laws. Till then thats just a side effect of what they get for harboring.
The Arizona cops would never ask me my citizenship status because I'm – you know – white – so, in their little pea brains, it would be impossible for me to be illegal.
Oh yes! Lets ask everyone their immigrationn status. How about I just go drown myself now to not deal with such a tedious burden that will be placed on everyone for the sake of catch a few.
I suppose you enjoy seeing old grandma getting a pat down search at the airport cause shes obviously a suspected terrorist and while we are at it lets ban guns. We can't trust a few irresponsible people since they like to shoot someone, themselves, something, or leave it around so their inbred children shoot themselves, their friend, or the school up with it.
Oh screw it! Lets go all out on this safety net and build a 3 mile high wall on all our borders and coasts and construct bubble domes for all us "pure Americans" to live in away from the rest of the barbaric world in which we can run around in hamster bubbles for protection against each other. It will be the perfect "American" utopia!
So people break the law and enter our country without consent, commit a crime and are pulled over and the cops are the ones being scrutinized for trying to figure out who they are when they dont have any identification? I swear to god theres not enough education out there for some of the morons we have in charge of our country
i know some people that are here illegally from eastern Europe, if you are in a car that was pulled over for speeding, will you have your birth certificate on you?
They need to make a law to add a common sense class call it "Use your head moron 101"