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
How come a PHD scientist or engineer from Russia, India or China waits ten years to come here,m study and leaves or stays but pays $10,000 waits years ti get a LEGAL spinsored work visa, and creates innovation and jobs here after all that suffering.......but a drug runner from Mexico or illegal uneducated border crosser can come here, drive with a fake drivers license for ten years, get free government funded hospital care for free, free bilingual education, free schooling and discounted college, pay no taxes or vote and now elligable for instant amnesty and a path towards a free work visa???????????????? And when they get recruited by the Zeta Cartel, like they just caught in Dallas texas running millions of money through horse racing, they get immunity and protection and just deported with no punishment?
Tell me this country doesnt have its immigration initiatives screwed up big time......we will soon be run by Mexican cartels and every government agency in Texas and Arizona will be paid off and corrupt because we try and protect unedicated Mexicans. We need to get serious and deport in masses these criminals from our country and start valuing the educated legals who try and contribute to this country from other countries, else we are going to end up like Mexico....uneducated, dumb and dead.
Are you serious? You're an idiot. Not only can you not spell or write a complete sentence, but the new immigration law that is allowing illegal immigrants to stay only applies to young adults brought here as CHILDREN who meet requirements that they are NOT drug dealers but instead HELPFUL members of society.
Talk about going overboard. You should write screenplays for Hollywood.
It's high time that the American people have a "None of the Above" option when voting for elected officials, including the president. I personally will not vote for either Romney or Obama, so I will stay home on election day. There are many people like me. This is some America.
People like you who stay home on election day are the ones making this country "that way".
If youre sick of Obama and Romney, consider voting for the Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson. He was a 2 term govenor of New Mexico and has more executive experience than the other 2 combined. He's social liberal and a fiscal conservative, perfect combination.
That will show them! Just sit on your couch as the rest of the country moves on.
You can always vote Libertarian (Gary Johnson) if you're fed up with the two party system that's ruining this country.
There are MANY people like YOU. Backwards thinking individuals with a myopic perspective on the legal issues that can affect this country.
How foolish to feel that the Federal Government has the best interest of legal residents of Arizonians and America at hand'? Immigration is a double edged sword and it does keep the labor pool low. But it also gives America an edge it needs to compete in the world economically and socially. "So let them in" they say. Soon we will be fighting in a civil war much like what's going on in Siria .
We need real clear simple laws that protect citizens– not this historically convoluted rhetoric from our government that says basically "nothing" and causes more confusion and problems then having "no" laws!
It basically says that the checking of papers can be done if it is involved in a legal stop or in the process of checking someone for a crime or infraction. You can't give the local authoritries too much power. It can then translate to other things. That would then result in abuse over time. It amazes me how little common sense people have.
This name of this article is 5 things learned. I'm of Mexican American descent, I live in Arizona and all I've learned from this is that politicians are out of touch and will do anything to pander for votes. They don't have to deal with the problems that illegals bring with them. Their kids aren't having to fight off gangs, their neightborhoods aren't looking like third world countries, they do know how to work the system and get free lunches and benefits and they do lower wages.
While we're being Arizona is on fire, Obama fiddles. He's more concerned about the "rights" of those that shouldnt' be here in the first place than the citizens that are struggling to make ends meet and can't get a hand out like they do. I'm going to remember this in November. I have many other legal Hispanic friends that feel the same way. We're here but media just doesn't want to hear from us.
Our country is being invaded by a foreign country and our government is siding with the invaders and suing all the states who try and defend themselves. SOMEONE EXPLAIN to me just what in the he11 is going with our COUNTRY!?
China an emerging power its biggest asset is its population
I also agree that we need to streamline the legal process for immigration. It would help the US by them paying in to the system. The folks on here blaming Obama need to get a clue a look at some facts. He's had a better record then the past administration. You can definitely tell the racists comment on here.
If employers would refuse to hire these leeches they would soon go back home. I have no proble with ANYONE that comes here kegally but I do have a bad problem with illegals.
The 4 most conservative justices will support the White House position if it is what the next Republican president would want. Kennedy is a maverick. His power comes form being the swing vote so he makes sure he swings back and forth now and again. Having just voted this way on immigration, my bet is he will vote against the health mandate as a "Make up call"
JP..Good comment..I agree!
What I learned is:
1) The USA is being over run by undesireable immigrants
2) The Democratic party and the ACLU LOVE this kind of thing
3) The USA needs a giant wall placed around it with heavily armed .50 cal machine gun turrets every 10 feet
4) These immigrants reproduce like insects...laying what seems to be hundreds of eggs at a time. Check your local Wal Mart for an example.
5) I want it to be 1950 again.
I don't think the immigration ruling suggests that the justices might approve the health reform bill as a legitimate expansion of federal authority at all. The federal government already has the primary authority & responsibility for enforcing immigration policy, while issues of insurance regulation and especially health care have traditionally always been left to the states of regulate. If anything, I think the immigration ruling shows a respect for the division of power between the federal government and the states, and that suggests that they will at least strike down the individual mandate because the federal government doesn't have clear supremacy in regulation of insurance or health care and, in fact, thoe issues have always been considered firmly within the sphere of state based powers.
my question is will the state now sue the US Gov't to enforce the laws that are on the books for immigration versus backing down from their responsibility all in the name of getting the illegal and legal vote
Good question, I think that is their only recourse. Justice Scalia clearly shows his frustration with predicament that Obama has placed AZ in by not following the laws on the books.
Nope, it's a federal law, supreme court will just go in small circle and punt it to this decision, hey but you libs like this stuff, slowly chipping away at my freedoms..
interesting most seem to be against Obama
a lot of the problem is associazted to economics. what the people in arizona should do is for every illegal who goes to the hospital and cannot pay and or for every illegal student in school, send the freaking bill to the obamas – let them pay the bloody thing and for everyone who says it is ok for illegals to be here regardless of the laws, send them a portion of that bill, let those idiots pay for them and for us to want them out, and of course the states, the coffers will grow. – maybe, hoepfully, but, don't hold your breath.
Why send it to Obama? It was a majority Republican decision.
And of course you'll also have to have your own price list at the grocery store for American picked fruit at twice the cost of our illegal picked fruit. And you conservatives will also need to pay a higher price for your hotel room than libs who get a discounted rate for an illegal cleaned room. I think this will work out well. Maybe you and your American hotel room cleaner can kneel down and read Gideon's Bible together while basking in your American-ness together.