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
So either do away with Immigration laws in their entirety or enforce them unilaterally. This partial enforcement is a waste of time, money and resources. I'm all for legal immigration and immigrants. It's what gives our country such a wonderful cultural diversity. However, if someone breaks the law, they should be punished accordingly.
"...it isn't likely to be a huge national issue when it comes to November." This is definitely untrue. This issue demonstrates how important it is to have a president that respects and enforces the laws. I think it will help motivate many people to come out to the polls to ensure that the Obama disaster does continue into a second term.
Well we learned one important fact. Our President would rather side with criminals than side with the American people.
I was appalled that Obama was happy with this ruling! Don't we all as Americans want legal immigration not illegal immigration! The way Obama was gloating I thought he had just won the election but I think that just lost him the election!
little steps. it means theres a foot in the door to reform again. bit by bit, the government is creeping into our lives.
It certainly seems that our president would rather side with criminals, look what he has done with Fast and Furious! We have got to get this man out of office before America turns into a third world cess pool. Legal Americans need to start protesting like the illegals and their supporters do. That might get someone's attention. I for one am outraged at the way the president is totally ignoring the will of the majority of the people. I cannot believe for the life of me that most Americans are ok with illegals coming into this country and sponging off legal Americans. There are too many legal American citizens struggling to keep a roof over their heads without help from the government for us to want to take care of people who steal into this country and then think we owe them the same things legal Americans have. The only thing we owe them is a trip back to where they came from and maybe a little jail time.
This is going no where with the problem in this country. Obama will just refuse to deport anyone now that are in jail for no papers the states are stuck with them.
. 2
I think this law is amazingly against civil rights I think if there here let them stay and stop making us pay for stupid programs which would not work there here well we can't do anithing I think there childs doesn't have to pay for the mistakes of there parents they pay taxes and wheter we don't like it they would do jobs that americans wont do for example would you go pick up tomatoes under 90 degree on the summer for the minimum wage would you work on hotels, take care of childrens who are not even yours, America we have to wake up and faced it this goverment wont deport 12million of immigrants ......we must ask the government. To fix our immigrations law once and for all and also do something. For people who been here for years and there children stop spreading. Families how would you feel if this were your case.....we must think and demand this government to fix this immigration system once and for all............
Entering the country illegally is a crime, there is no age discrimination. If you came with yours parents, they should be ashamed making criminals of their children. Again, let me state that entering the country illegally is a crime, therefore if you are not a legal resident you are a criminal and should be arrested, processed and deported. I am a naturalized citizen and very surprised that I hold my citizenship in higher regard than native born Americans who apparently want to give their country away?
Our immigration laws do not need to be fixed, the ones on the books just need to be enforced. If the laws had been being enforced in the first place, we would not have this probem now. I am all for immigration but all against illegal aliens stealing into this country. The only reason people are against the laws we have now is so it makes it easier for illegals to stay and for others to just come in. People should have to prove that they really want and intend to be American citizens. America, love it or leave it.
Yes, when they start profiling you for looking like an illegal Canadian, then that might get your attention on just how idiotic Arizona and her governor actually are.
I love that answer you wrote. Will cops be demanding papers from immigrants like that German who set 52 fires in LA earlier this year? Or just Latinos?
I love this how many of these men of the court live in the poverty tax bracket and have to compete with men that will work cheeper because they are not supposed to be here in the first place. Americans in the lower tax brackets deserve to have their needs met and one big one is a fair shot at employment. I dont feel like my needs were met at all with these judgments. These people come into my country and take and take. They take work, they take money,they do all the nasty things that every society does including crime. They bring in drugs they have gangs of violent criminals. They do not assimilate as expected,The men making decisions for us all in court dont have to live next to them and come in contact with them every day. They are not disrespected to their faces everyday then watch while they head off to a job they stole because they will work cheeper then any of us can by law can. Every judgement that doesnt support rounding them up and deporting them is a judgment against those of us struggleing. I have no problem with legal immigration,once the person is check out and accepted fine they work for the same minimum wage. Illegal means illegal The government can make the hard choice to send our people to war to possibly die but they will not make the hard choice to protect Americas poor. But they sure have no problem locking us up if we have to resort to crime because of there choices
Illegals cost New Mexico tax payers approsimately 80 to 90 million dollars a year. Bernalillo County has a hospital (UNMH) where illegals can get free medical treatment. I, as a resident pay over $400.00 a year on my property tax bill that goes to treat these illegals. It is just not right! The public schools (APS) has to have two teachers in a class room, one of which must be bi-lingual, fluent in Spanish in order to communicate and teach these children of illegal parents. The New Mexico State Government panders and molly coddles these illegals and still grant them Safe Sanctuary here.
I understand all illegal immiigrants come looking for a better future
Lets welcome all of them probably just from Central Anerica and Mexico about 50,000,000
They need a better future
They will appreciate what we do for them.
We all should have the right of free travel with no legal restrictions
Illegal immigration is being successfully downplayed..."and there isn't as much voter angst about the issue" anymore....thank goodness, in fact, magically in the last few months illegal immigration "has been solved" and illegal immigration is now a non-issue as we have to mostly worry about the disintegrating economy. And even when the economy may possibly recover one day, the illegal immigration issue has been solved forever, borders secured and we all happily speak Spanish.
The only way to beat the FED. Business and the Supreme Court ruling is simply, do not patronize any business, contractor, or hire anyone that is illegal. Ask questions! Demand American labor. You may think that you are getting good cheap labor by hiring these illegals, but what you don't realize is they are costing you much more money that you pay in other ways, like taxation, crime, depletion of our natural resources, resulting in higher utility bills. Yes we subsidize these illegals which more than off sets your savings by hiring them. sooner or later, they will get the message and leave.
Our government doesn't want to do anything about immigration due to the fact that they know there will be civil unrest.
Forty years ago, Congress knew illegal immigration was escalating and would reach a point where the golden goose would die. With the the extra burdens of the war, financial and real estate debt, we have reached that point. We can no longer afford to subsidize free education, welfare and medical care for illegal immigrants. They can no longer ignore the problem and leave it for the next administration. The question is: what to do about it? They'd better decide soon, because we're circling the drain right now.
One thing we learned from this article: the person who wrote it has limited legal experience. There's no horse-trading of this sort in the USSC and, more importantly, the power to regulate immigration is undeniably a Federal power while the power to force individual citizens to participate in a private stream of commerce is not. Roberts was right on this and he will be right in striking down the Healthcare debacle.
There has been child abuse by Republicans Arizona on hispanic children and that is the next legal battle. Evil Arizona Jan B. is she sober?
The section that was not struck down (sec 2) is not the show me your papers provision. That was section 6 which was struck down. The court said they can't rule on it's legality because it's wasn't even in effect.
oy vay CNN, get it right
I am a life long Democrat, but I have got to side with Romney on this issue. and oh yes Barrack, I don't think I will forget this by November. You have been a very big disappointment to me, my family and friends. I hope you don't become to over confident by what your handlers are telling you. There are alot of people just like me that think and feel the same way. You talk the talk, but do not walk the walk. Your decision to take on healt care before the Economy/Jobs/Employment was a huge mistake and that issue alone is still very fresh in my mind. It tells me that you do not know what your priorities should be in getting America on its feet again. Also your healt care resolution is a half ass piece of CRAP. Get a pair Barrack and just maybe you will get another four years, but I doubt it.
The first couple of bills taken up by the repub house (HR1 and HR3) were on abortion rights, and you blame Obama?
great comment!!
Clem had the best remarks yet! Obama attacked the health care bill, instead of worrying about our economy!
You need to put on your smarts if you got any since I would rather vote for someone who is gviing it 100% for the middle class vs. a professional b.s. like Mitt R. You don't know on how to analize and process information to make a smart decision. Go ahead vote for a fool like you.... .
I voted for him as well and he is a huge disappointment. He ripped on Bush about the war and promised to bring the soldiers home. He simply moved them to Afghanistan. He promised to close down Guanantimo Bay and is now spending over $800,000 per prisoner and updating the facilities on out tax dollars. He promised to get the economy straight and blamed Bush for the mess. Yet, he has sent jobs to China and brought Chinese engineering firms to complete a huge protion of the infrastructure road projects under the stimulus money. I used to think people were crazy when they stated he is trying to break this country but now I think we are in serious trouble. He is a L*I*A*R and a fruad. Sad!