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
You get pulled over in any state, whats the first thing the police officer ask's you for...Your ID..Why should anyone be exempt from showing their "PAPERS" ?
Showing ID would be different than showing immigration status. An example would be my wife. She has duel citizenship for both the US and Germany. She often travels to Germany on business, and if she were (for whatever reason) asked by a police officer to show ID, it would likely be her german passport if she was returning from overseas. Would the officer be allowed to detain her because she has a heavy accent and can't prove she is in the US leagally?
I think you must really look like an alien that's why you are repeatedly being stopped by police and asked to show your ID. When I get pulled over, the first thing the police asks for is my wallet.
If you get pulled over for running a stop sign, do you expect that your sister in the car with you and her 10 year old son should have to prove their citizenship? If you are walking out of a grocery store with a bag of food, should you be stopped by an officer and asked to prove your citizenship? That is way they have limited the proof of citizenship to a narrow definition of cause.
Even our supreme court has failed us. YES It should be the FEDS that enforce immigration but when they don't do their jobs states should be allowed to enforce it to protect their citizens from harm, hospitals from over burden expenses, school from over crowding/budgeting, and their own budgets. Some state budgets are in the RED due to supporting illegals and the FEDS for years has refused to pay for this overburdening of the states.
CNN Tread carefully. We the people are taking back our Republic from you slave master criminals.
6. This DOTUD will only uphold Federal law that he sees contrary to social, economic and political justice. It's that simple. Whatever will make this guy administration more dictator-like. Stay ignorant America.
Come on tadpole! We're not looking for Germans. WE ARE LOOKING FOR THE MEXCAN Etc. DRAIN ON OUR SOCIETY !
"Signaling people out" Uhm....don't you mean "Singling" people out, CNN?
Maybe that's why the illegals keep coming to the United States. They know the U.S. government is not going to do anything about it.
Great way to put it! We may as well build a bridge and welcome them in with open arms....I mean wallets.
I SEE THAT TOO. i know the government gives to mostly latinos money to start, letting them get welfare, food stamps and all other government funded programs and they are here ILLEGALLY.
I SAY NO GREEN CARD, NO WORK VISA, NO PAPERS...you dont deserve the prosperity that USA has to offer. i see these are only for the ones who come THE LEGAL WAY AND ARE CITIZENS!!!
You don't don't need to see my papers. You can go about your business. Move along.
Always works on the weak minded. You know what I'm saying?? Yahhhh, you doo!
"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."
Oh really? And handing out a million work permits to illegals escaped attention? I don't think so. Obama needn't mention the word "jobs" again to an American citizen.
Someone should check the ID of the supreme court justices. I think that they are aliens.
MY OPINION....i am in the middle of getting my husband here THE LEGAL WAY! Having to sign my life away tad make a promise that my husband will not live off the government when they come. still over 20 months later i am no closer to bringing him here. we still go thru much immigration process. it is heart wrenching and stressful to go thru.
SHOW ME YOUR PAPERS ruling i love it.!!!!
if you are not here THE LEGAL WAY, either get legal right away or go back to where you are from. It is not the fault of USA that your parents were stupid enough to not make you legal but all the illegal ones have to stop living off of taxpayers. and welfare.
BE LEGAL OR BE GONE!!!
IF I HAVE TO DO EVERYTHING THE LEGAL WAY, THEN SO DOES THOSE WHO ARE NOT LEGAL!!
AND THE ONLY ONES HOLLERING, RACIAL PROFILING ARE THE LATINOS....IF MY HUSBAND WANTS TO HE CAN HOLLER, RACIAL PROFILING, HE IS FROM EGYPT AND THEY GOING OVER HIS INFORMATION LIKE A CRIMINAL.
IT IS TIME FOR USA TO START DOING THE SAME WITH THE LATINOS.
If you are Hispanic, Latino, Black, Asian, American Indian, or a woman driving home from the tanning salon, you now see that the November Election is all about the Supreme Court and your life for the next thirty or forty years. The next president will name three or four justices to the high court, and currently, those folks seem to value corporations over average folks walking down the street.
even though the republicans have not hired people to actually build concentration campr they are destroying the lives of working class people and senior citizens in this country by shipping jobs overreas, trying to destrny social security and medicare and destroying voter rights for wonen and minority groups and denying necesrary medical care to poor people and destroying the rights of women to have easy access to all forms of birth control..which all amounts to viciously slamming working class americans and senior citizens and women and minority group people into early graves..the republicans are just as evil as the german nazis.
The biggest problems are the border states, They experience most of this. Where I live we don't have the problem. I believe this is troublesome for them. Like I said, I don't live their problems with illegals. We are all immigrants of this country, some direct and some not. I do believe one thing, if you want to live here then you need to be legal, but I don't feel that will happen anytime soon. The USA is a melting pot and it is not a bad thing, but we should not have an open door policy.
If you lived in a sanctuary state like I do you would u derstand better and stop using terms like melting pot. More like a witches cauldron. And obama, by suspending ICE help to Arizona police just shows that he wants illegals to slaughter us all. They could run anyone against him in Nov. I will not vote for this traitor again.
keeping immigrants illegal keeps the labor pool wages low
I am not an immigrant, I was born here! My ancestors TOOK this country from the stone-age creatures that infested the land. America is NOT a melting pot. Mexicans don't come here to assimilate into the culture, they come here to set up little hispanic enclaves an expand them as much as possible. They are as close to a cancer as a country can have,
Look people I'm a proud mexican its sad the way all of you think bout us and talk smackk bout our families and I'm married I have a 1 year old son I'm a hard wrking man I pay taxes and I pay taxes for those other illegal wrkers...but I don't have a problem because they want a better life and a better future for their kids and I think that's the most important thing in life we are not quitters and we are not terrorist were not al qaeda or mexican cartels were innocent ppl trying to have a better future and to raise our kids with dignity respect and maturity.....we cook for u we cut your grass we take care of your kids and the house and pool u have we made it....so have some respect because don't be surprise if my son and the rest of those illegal innocent children take the job away from your american kids and that's a fact we will not quit and we will keep fighting to give our kids and families a btter life
For those of you who missed high school World History, I think the Germans pulled this off in the late 30's and early 40's. I wonder what mark they plan for Hispanics, Latinos, Blacks, Asians, and American Indians. In God We Trust, all others we mark and watch!