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
@TADPOLE....you wife should carry both passports no matter what when she travels to show she is a citizen here. keep in mind, all this mess is over really the latinos, they are the only ones i see hollering they are being treated bad. the majority of illegals here are the latinos, they dont want to be sent back across the south boarder. not our fault mexico has a problem.
This is what's bothering, illegals come here to work and live. They don't pay taxes, they don't contribute to social security and they don't have driver's licenses. When they pop out kids in the US, they collect welfare until the kid turns 18. It's hard working taxpayers like us that support these termites living in our society, they keep chewing away at the funds we pay and they pay nothing back. Eventually citizens will say enough and take matters into their own hands, when that happens is when it's going to get really ugly.
Michelle, a child born in America becomes a citizen and qualifies for welfare.
I doubt most of us carry our passport around on a daily basis. So if i am travelling in AZ and get pulled over for an infraction, how am i expected to prove my citizenship to the officer? My driver's license is not sufficient. On the other hand, since i don't look Hispanic the officer probably will not ask for my "papers". The only way this law can be implemented is by profiling. If not, then ALL of us will have to carry our "papers" with us everyday we are in AZ.
You raise an interesting point about passports– since we don't need them, obviously, to travel within the US borders, not everyone has one. So if you are a US citizen without a passport, a drivers license is really the only form of legal identification that many people have. If that isn't sufficient, will everyone traveling to Arizona, especially if you look the least bit hispanic, need to get a passport ahead of time? That sounds way too much like "show me your papers" of a communist country than the US.
If you cared to read Arizona's law, you would no that a driver's license IS all you need.
Well, I guess he got the votes he wanted. Dam the country as long as I get to rule.
I think immigration is a great thing. It made this country a place everyone wants to be. However, people need to do it legally. We all know that the real problem is American businesses are using the illegal immigrants for cheap labor. They are a big part of why illegals keep migrating to the US. They should also be held accountable. The US should enforce its immigration policies. If the process of immigration is broken or makes it difficult then fix it. But what is being done now is not right.
Latinos do not have enough brains to see that they are being used by the administration to secure votes-it is made to look like compassion or the right thing to do -that is right folks, the admin is doing the right thing for itself-but you get waht you vote for–we are becoming a nation of stupidty and fail to see the hidden agenda.
Question: If I was in Mexico, or any other country for that matter, ILLEGALLY, what is their immigration laws/policy? So why are we having more of a "issue" with this than any other country?
Answer: TOO MUCH FREEDOM? Google "too much freedom" and think about it! I leave it up 2 you the people!
Because big corporation need a cheap labor source. They need go after the people who hire these folks and that is when the problem will stop or slow down.
Evidently Iraq, Iran, Russia, China, N Korea, and countless other countries policy on immigration are to shoot you or cut off your head. So that's what some of the other countries policy is. If you are lucky enough to be in middle east or Africa, their policy is to sell you as a slave. I guess our democracy is not looking so bad after all.
The reason we have reasonable prices for meat, fruits and vegetables is because the large corporations hire illegal aliens. They need to go after the people who are hiring them and the problem is solved. But then we would not have a cheap labor source and prices would sky rocket. These people do the jobs no one else it willing to do. They will work for a few dollars a day and live in deplorable conditions to get a shot at the AMerican Dream.
wait....YOU have reasonable prices on meat and vegtables? No one else in the country does, how did you get it?
Arizona – leading the way to a national ID, step by step.
The gov of Arizona should be impeached for being stupid enough to think that she could override the Federal Gov't. She needs to go back to elementary school and see how a bill and law is formed.
This ruling is a big slap in Arizona's face. The supreme court stroke down 3 out of the 4 major provisions and the only provision that the allowed is going to be a legal nightmare for Arizona. What the court says is that the state police can ask for immigration paper, but they cannot arrest or detain anybody who lacks the proper immigration paper. So why bother asking? Arizona is going to go bankrupt fighting all those lawsuits. Brewer is a complete idiot!
We also learned that the current folks in the White House really don't care about the border problems. They want to play politics with key issues, this is security for all of us. Anyone read Tom Clancy's "Against all enemies" The WH is putting us all in danger.
I could swear we already have laws about all this? Can't we enforce what is already on the books? Why do we always have to put more laws in place to cover laws already on the books. Can we please put some citizens in charge of the government and put the politicians out!
“Whether our ancestors arrived on the Mayflower or brought here on slave ships, whether they signed in at Ellis Island or they crossed the Rio Grande, their diversity has not only enriched this country, it helped build the greatest economic engine the world has ever known,”
If it's o.k. to ask to see papers during a traffic stop, it should be just fine to see them when we go to vote. Given enough time, there is no logical reason why that mandate should be challenged by thinking, rational adults.
And with this ruling the country continues its journey into the crapper. Soon america will be northern mexico and will be just as good (heavy sarcasm) a place to live.