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
Unless all that is speaking is NATIVE American (Indian), we all migrated from some other country. Can we all just get alone. None and I mean none has the authority on who is deserving of becoming an American citizen. If someone had not given the first immagrants an opportunity to settle here an make it home, where would we all be. Think!!! We are so driven by who is right and who is wrong this nation is becoming a hate driven nation. NOT A Land of OPPORTUNITY. You may have been born in this county but you didn't come from this country.
Sharon, while it's true we came from different countries, there is no way of knowing whether the intent of our ancestors was to bilk the system for free benefits that cost taxpayers money or if they were truly looking to better themselves and contribute to society. I'm thinking that many illegals do want to better themselves; however, I think we've all seen an increase in government handouts that is putting a financial strain on our economy.
I see people say this a lot however even the "Native Americans" migrated here from Asia so really no human is native to North America.
Sharon – When you think in those "Unless your an Indian..." terms, you really set yourself back. If that is to be your point then you should also not be allowed to wear jeans, be forced to wear a dress and be happy that us "Men" let you be a homemaker. Think progressively and move forward!
Dude, do you live a never never land or something? or you pay no taxes or you live in vermont or something? Illegals drain our economy, they pay NOTHING into our government.
If immigrants do not have to obey our laws, do we? Do I have to pay taxes?
When a government gives "CRIMINALS" (illegals) more rights than it's own citizens, that is called treason ! The united states government is doing everything in it's power to destroy America and it is time for a revolution, for that is all that will change this country. You now have taxation without representation and this ruling proves it, government is more concerned about helping "CRIMINALS" (illegals) than the people that pay their wages, and gives government FREE health care ! $16 trillion in debt but government gives $2 billion a week to Afghanistan another act of treason !!
I think the "IDIOTS"(you) need to calm down. People in 1900 were saying the Irish/german/other immigrants were destroying America; and that was before we had immigration limits and the restrictions we have today. We'll be fine. Our average skin color will just be a little darker, that's all.
1. Other states should be encouraged to require officers to check immigration status.
2. The four provisions denied could be rewritten or challenged.
3. Agreed.
4. The US is a country of LEGAL immigrants. Those who are concerned with illegal immigration know that the election is very important. Those we place in office must have the desire to enforce the current laws of our nation.We have to be FAIR to those who follow the rules and take the required steps to become a US citizen.
If immigration laws are too tough, change them to a reasonable approach, but at least follow the law! Otherwise, we continually run the risk of opening our doors to both hard-working, productive individuals and those with criminal or terrorist intents!
5. Health care and immigration are separate issues. The court sided with the federal government specifically on immigration rules because these laws are in the juristiction of the federal government. Requiring purchase of health care or any product is not in the federal jurisdiction. Besides, anyone, regardless of their political persuasion should be in favor of state's rights. This is what keeps our government from swinging too far to the right or too far to the left based on who is in office. It also provides choice to citizens to select the state that best meets their needs for their chosen path in life.
Another failure in protecting America and jobs for it's citizens. Border states don't even have the simple power to ask to see your papers if you appear Mexican and live on the Mexican/US border because it's "profiling". If Mexicans are the ones taking American jobs (aka "the problem"), then Mexicans shouldn't give a rat's ass if they have to show their papers to get a job here or live here. THAT'S the price for wanting to live as a Mexican in a border state. If an American wants to live in Mexico, he better DAMN side carry his passport ALL the time because PROFILING is NORMAL in other countries. Get out if you don't like it.
#1: Federal government is abusing its authority.
#2: The U.S. no longer has border integrity.
#3: People who come here in violation of the law...are protected by the law.
#4: Liberals have been destroying our country since the 1960's...and still are.
#5: Our election process is polluted by illegal voters...and Obama wants it this way.
So basically the crackdowns, the brown people sweeps have been green-lighted in Arizona. How long before someone is killed in relation to this decision? Not long at all, I predict.
so frustrating how our government cannot handle a simple JOB that we pay them for and that the ILLEGALS do not pay for, it's as simple as that!!
Simpson Mizzoli compromise in 1986 had three major provisions. Amnesty, secure the borders and punish employers whgo hire illegals. Only amnesty for illegals was enacted by our executive branch.
Man, I don't understand how this blog works. If you type a reply, how come it doesn't show next to the comment you're replying to?
Hey Nate maybe you need to go South of the Border and with a few million people and take their jobs and abuse their system lets see how they react in a few years!
Love to see you do that you live better than your parents cry baby
You *do* realize the rest of the world is laughing at the US, don't you?
They laugh of how you invate other countries and don't listen to a security consul and destabilize economies than don't wamt illegal imigration?please another American ignorant go back to you American movies men in black 3
since Obama was elected, we're the joke of the world.
America will never learn from its mistakes and other countries. Even rednecks are not truly Americans. No one claim to be a native of this country unless you are dark skinned and have a hat made of feathers. In case you all are still wondering, I am referring to Native Americans. We should legalize immigration so that government can harness the tax from everybody. Please don't think for a second that this country will be better without any immigrants. It will be a hell on earth without any immigrants.
Immigration is legal. No one has ever said otherwise. If the illegals were going to do it legally, there would not be any issues. But they don't, so there are.
Um, Shane, immigration IS legal!! If you get permission to come in to the country, to look for work and to live here. That was not the issue. The issue was whether or not the States could throw out those people that are NOT legally there using resources of those WITH PERMISSION to be here by the government – who, whether you like it or not, always controls who gets what in a society. Borders of all countries are closed to people without proper papers.
You can solve a large portion of this problem by each state incorporationg a new tax on illegal Imigrants called "The Speedy Gonzale's Tax" that will fund Americans who are unemployed and pay for shipping illegals back to the Mexican Borders. This tax will be required of all businesses who hire illegals. If a business does not pay the tax then they are fined when it is discovered when that they have illegals working for them and they are retroactively taxed.
I'm sure if you floated your ridiculous idea with Arpaio and Brewer (AZ's infamous A and B), they would think it's a wonderful proposition...especially the name you have chosen. What are YOUR ethnic roots, by the way?
what ever happened to states rights? I just dont understand. If you are here ILLEGALLY then you are a criminal.
Just like if you roll a stop sign, you are a crimminal right?