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
The problem are the two people that seem to be running the state of AZ....Brewer and Arpaio. Why would intelligent people vote into office (and continue to do so) two people who are not only militant ha__ers but are so st__ud to boot. These two people could not figure their own tails out of a paper bag? What's up, AZ?? You have allowed your state to go to the dogs, given your Latino citizens the finger and provided them with good reason to organize and get out the vote. Want more evidence of their stu__dity? A and B are now blaming our President for the decisions of the SCOTUS which leans WAY to the right, by the way. AZ, you should wizen up and get rid of these two and elect people who are truly interested in making solutions...not war.
If you don't like the way AZ citizens choose their ELECTED people, then I suggest you not move there. Nobody is telling you whom to vote for.
If the law protects them and allows them to stay then what will stop them from having the right to vote on those laws? This is messed up. Thanks OWEBAMA
I hope people are starting to figure out this country really died in 1865. The victors propaganda would have you believe they were just trying to free slaves, but really it was just the union letting the states know you will have the freedoms alloted to you by your federal master. Once states rights were gone, we all became slaves. RIP American Dream.
When are the Democrats and Republicians going to start thinking about the American people instead of votes. When is the people of the United States going to start protesting and voicing their opinion to stop our government from doing whatever they want to do with immigration. All illegal aliens should have no rights, as they are breaking the laws and they are criminals. Our economy can not get a kick start because of the millions and millions of dollars that are being spent on the illegal aliens that shouldn't be in the United States in the first place. Shame on the American businesses and people that hire the illegal aliens to work for them. The businesses should be on a list for people to view and boycot those businesses. If the illegals dont have jobs, they will go back to their own country on their own.
Romney will fix it with the fence along our border and the deportation of all illegals. He owes this to his base and will follow thru.
Mitt can kiss the Hispanic vote goodbye.
We learned that an illegal alien invaders vote is more important than a legal citizens.
Ignorant illegal don't vote you do
After reading a few comments on here, it's easy to see why we are screwed. Our citizens are idiots, and therefore elect idiots. Wow, you people need to read some history, economics and political theory...
It seems amazing that our Courts, our President and our Legislature chooses to always and exclusively focus on the group that are not citizens, but never on the other side, The citizens. The people who are not citizens have rights but it appears that Citizens have just the responsibilty to pay the expenses of providing benefits to non citizens and for all these public officials. Maybe the States and the Citizens need to tread llightly on paying the taxes to support these insitutions. let them collect from the non-citizens. After all our President can select what laws he chooses to enforce.
Illegals enter America illegally; it is as simple as that; I am glad for one thing: all those who will make it to heaven have gone through the correct steps (legally so to speak; by faith and repentance); no one will enter through the gates of heaven illegally
A lot of nonsense utopic talk kick them all blah blah .. if employers stop hiring them the problem is no more.. but that it not happening anytime soon
I don't care if employers hire them, as long as their paid the same as American workers. Not to reward the illegal status, but to protect American workers from being undercut. And severe penalties for employers that hire illegal "slave" labor to increase their profits.
"We hold these truths to be self evident; that ALL "men" (people) are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
I pledge alegiance to the the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands; One nation,
Indivisible with liberty and justice for ALL
.
I am a patriot. I am a human being. I am not a "party".
A nation divided against itself cannot stand.
@skylard. Couldn't have said it any better. I think you have the best comment.
Viva Obama yeah,viva la corte suprema,viva Mexico.
Press 2 para español
if you like mexico so much,go back there and fight for your country. and leave our country alone were tired of footing the bill for you and people like you.and take the tratior obama and the dems with you.
I didn't know you pay my bills omg daddy
I pay to be free, so should everyone else. I started working at age 15 since my family was poor and I had to help my parents. No government agency helped us out. Everyone in my family worked, some 2-3 jobs to make ends meet and we all paid our taxes and contributed to the system. If immigrants want to come here to live free and reap the benefits then they should go through the legal process like my ancestors did.
And whats that legal process 50 million dollar to spend in the us?
walk in snow, holes in shoes. uphill both ways etc etc.
So I'm not sure I've ever understood the whole controversy over illegal immigration. It is illegal by definition, by name. This must mean there is a LEGAL way to immigrate here. Thus thousands do so every year, going through the proper steps. American law is pretty clear about this, and yet we have people debating whether to allow this (really?) and getting angry at Republicans who want to enforce the law of the land. This is a Democracy folks! We the people, created these laws that now, the federal government (the Executive) refuses to enforce. Can somebody explain this all to me?
Proper step ah yeah like Madonna and other international figures and like Osama families yeah they dont get check cause they have papers(green ones)and this is the land of the free
Welcome to the U of A...The land of do as I say not as I do
@FIsher – I'm sorry you don't like how American law works. IYou being Not-American and all. I assume that's the reason why you chose not to abide by it. You're exactly the kind that needs to be sent home.
Explain of course not! They completely ignore. This is a profound question nobody want to address.