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 way Obama claimed victory, in a court ruling that 98% of Americans don't agree with, just put the death nail in his re-election bid...
Americans will never elect a president that sides with criminals!
Oh, you're right...they just elected a war criminal from 2000-2008....uh huh.
It's a conservative court. Obama had nothing to do with it. Go get your paci.
Do you have any proof that 98% don't agree? Also according to the Attorney General, "Today's ruling appropriately bars the state of Arizona from effectively criminalizing unlawful status in the state and confirms the federal government's exclusive authority to regulate in the area of immigration."
ohhh no sir the death toll will be his health care bill and claiming executive privlege for attorney general Holder "fast and furious"..can you say Nixon and watergage with out getting quisey
Well said. I hope you're accurate. There are a lot of stupid people out there. Really ignorant to the point of being a used car salesman's dream. I just hope the ignorant liberals who made up the majority of the voters who put this socialist schmuck in office get a brain bleach before November. The 12% of the population who shares the same "background" as Obamduh! don't possess enough force to vote him for another term. I'm just disgusted that so many were so gullible.
A person who works from before sun-up till after sun-down at an undesireable job to support their family is not a criminal, but indeed a hard worker who deserves atleast a little bit of respect. I'm sure YOU live in house built by a day-worker, unless ofcourse, you yourself manufactured all the supplies and did all the work solo.
5 things learned?... I think not.... 1 thing already learned & noted is, that the N W O runs just about everything now (or spreads it's influence upon it).... including the S. Ct.
We folks ain't seen nuthin' yet. Sigh.
Boycott Arizona. Send letters to Intel Corporation asking them to move their offices out of Arizona
You are crazy. I am a Hispanic American Citizen (born and raised in the US) and I and every other Hispanic I know will be voting for Romney.
You all fail to realize that we are the people that these illegal criminals do the most damage to because it is our surnames they seek since it would be pretty hard too pass themselves off with last names like Obama, Pelosi, Biden, Holder, Johnson, etc. They don't bat an eyelash when damaging our familes but when confronted with it they speak of shared heritage and loyalty.
I am an American Citizen first who will stand with my felllow citizens to vote Obama and the Democrats out in November.
What is the big deal about carrying proper ID
If you are in Mexico illegally you are deported, same with Canada, France, England etc.
Why, because Arizona wants our nations laws upheld?
shame on you and boycott you!
Sorry but I am all for sending the ILLEGAL ones back where they came from and if you feel that sorry for them why don't you join them? Look at all the other countries out there and their laws regarding ILLEGALS oh right they really suck at it don't they and for good reason ....
Hey Edward are you getting the feeling that a lot of other Hispanics do not agree with you? It sure looks that way to me.
I hope Obama is reading these posts.
I don't know about the rest of you but when they call or come to my door I tell them that I am absolutely voting for Obama just to screw with his numbers.
Inflate his numbers and then comes the November surprise.
I also do this because Obama supporters can be dangerous. I would like to keep my family and home safe so it is better to say I support Obama.
Boycott Calif.for the way they embrace these criminals.Hope you do boycott Arizona.That way we won't have to see you or people who look like you.
PLEASE, PLEASE will anyone in the media spend 3 minutes and check what NO ONE in the media knows regarding immigration and the department of state. That is that any and ALL immigrants having a green card (properly termed an I559) MUST carry same with them at all times.... this is a condition of receiving a green card!!! When people return to the US and do not have their green cards with them they are fined $$$$ by U.S. CUSTOMS and BORDER PROTECTION. So there is nothing new about requiring immigrants with a green card to carry same as it is already a federal law / requirement. Thanks, R & R
@RemynRay. Yes green card holders have to produce their green cards while entering US but they are not required to carry them on their person all the time. And most importantly they are not detained immediately if they are not found to be carrying them on their person.
A "federal law". And just what good is it to have federal laws. It appears that it does not matter any more. DHS needs to be closed down. Traitors.
I don't see a connection between the two cases. The author is trying to make the case "Oh, the Federal government 'won' (mostly) on the first one, so this indicates that SCOTUS thinks 'ooga, feds GOOOOD'. So they'll vote that way on the other case too." That's a heckuva stretch there.
Romney doesn't have enough street cred, enough GOP backing, enough of a resume, or is a good enough politician/campaigner to beat Obama, so......
BD
Among those likely to vote, Romney is ahead by several percentage points, and the immigration ruling does more to help the hispanics and takes money away from the blacks. It could backfire.
Really.................................
That's what you all thought when we cleaned his clock in 2010 and recently when WI re-elected Governor Walker.
Millions upon millions just like me who don't identify themselves as Tea Party per se share their core values of personal responsibility and it is "we" who will once again emerge en masse in November to vote Obama and the Dems out in November.
You continue to underestimate the size/scope of the Tea Party because we are not our there "spiking the ball" over every little perceived achievement. We are too busy working trying to survive Obama's disastrous economy but make no mistake about it, you will hear our voices loud and clear in November.
That's laughable to the max, Obama had only held one real job in his whole life before becoming president.
Before that he was just another dope smoking college student who had gotten a grant byclaiming he was from another country.
LOL. You are correct. President Obama didn't just pull the plug on two wars, roll back the Bush Tax cuts, or just end the economic crash that happened under Bush. Instead, he slowly pulled us out of a recession, kept the debt-incurring tax cuts, got Bin Laden, and responsibly set about ending two wars. In other words, President has been a great President. Not perfect. Just great.
Well spoken! People have such short memories. Few realize it usually takes a whole term to fully address the messes of their predecessors.
What planet are you living on? Obama EXTENDED the Bush tax cuts, extended the Iraq war and were STILL in Afghanistan.
Way to make a fool of yourself
you cannot prove any of that..... and he wasn't the one that got obama.... the navy seals were the ones..... your a fool and have been hypnotized by today's media..... feel sorry for you....
Proof that life on other planets exist (although I am not sure it qualifies as intelligent)...cuz you ain't been living on this planet the last 3.5 years.
Yeah ranks right up there under Jimmy Carter.
You have got to be kidding me. Obama a great President? Where have you been the last 3 1/2 years? He has done nothing but sour all of our good international relationships, create an atmosphere of cover-up and denial in his administration (no transperancy as he promised), support legislation that would move us toward Socialism (Obamacare), and spend massive amounts of money for his own pet projects (too many Czars) and personal life (vacations, wardrobe, & campaigning).
In case you haven't looked, were one step away from a full blown depression. The recession hasn't even gotten better. But worse. millions of people out of work, and he gives amnesty to 800,000 illegal workers.
Obama a great president? That's highly debatable. Obama actually ramped up the war in Afghanistan. We're still in a recession. And he didn't make good on his promise to end the Bush Tax Cuts. Not to mention, he never went after Wall Street bankers, and hedge fund managers. If anything, he's been more of the status quo; picking up where Bush left off. I'm not saying Romney would be a better choice, but saying Obama has been a great president sounds like partisan hooey. Romney would just be a new act in a long line of presidents who take their orders from the Military Industrial Complex, among others. Hardly great by any measure.
Seems to me that the only reason we still have the Bush tax cuts is because republicans fought tooth and nail to keep them. Democrats were not happy about it. But the smart ones understand why. It would be nice if republicans did compromise on something...anything the president proposed.
Overall, I would say Obama has been a so-so president. I wish he wasn't as much a politician, but you gotta do what you gotta do. And considering a bunch of republicans who did everything in their power to stop everything (and I mean everything from routine appointments to easter egg hunts) he tried to do, that makes what he did manage to do that much more impressive.
New home sales increased to highest point in some time. Let the good economic news keep pouring in. Poor mittens won't have a campaign to stand on.
You people are so ungreatful. Obama has done a good job so far. As an outsider (From India) I feel Americans should open their minds and look around the world to understand America’s situation. All major economies across the globe are struggling just to stay afloat, even emerging countries of the decade like china and India have slowed down considerably.. America is doing way better and Obama is the major reason.. What do you Americans excpect the president to do in one term? bring down the unemployement from 12pc to 4pc and grow the GDP from -2.5pc to +6pc? Get real.. America is doing very well comapred to any other major economy.
I hope my outsider perspective as an outsider will help clear some of your minds.. If America does not want Obama please send him to India we will be glad to have a great leader to succed our current Prime minister Mr.Sigh when he retires next year.
Linking immigration to the healthcare bill is a real stretch.
"I love how they struck down laws that were only reinforcing what was already on the federal books."
The key word there is *federal*. The states *don't* have the same powers as the federal government.
Face it the federal government is inadequate. All they are good for is wasting the taxpayer's dollars and voting themselves raises. It totally sounds like Egypt before Mubarak was ousted.
This is true Brian, but not for the reasons you believe.
The problem is when the gov. doesn't do its job to protect the people then the state and then the individual has the right to protect themselves. This is a form of robbery or fraud these are crimes that we go to jail for so read and understand the law b4 you open that dumb trap!
The federal government trampling on "states rights" is what started this countrys civil war.
@shark, yes it was. And it is time for it to happen again. The fed governs by concent, they do not rule us. It is time for them t to be reminded who is actually in charge.
Illegal immigration is damaging to all citizens. Postings, such as the following by Fisher 51 -
"Viva Obama yeah,viva la corte suprema,viva Mexico" are really offensive. This issue has nothing specific to do with Mexico – albeit it is geographically the largest source of illegal immigration, but has to do with our rights as citizens of a nation. By the way – Mexico's immigration laws are far stricter than ours – repressing other Latino's from Central and South America.
Who said the states did have the same authority? The feds don't seem to have an issue when it comes to matters of federal criminal law such as murder, wherein there is a HIGH degree of "cooperation" between federal and state law enforcement. At issue is not whether cooperation is kosher, it IS whether the current administration is willing to accept cooperation from local officials. Since feds are not willing to cooperate, it is not a question of legality–it is a question of WILLINGNESS...
When police officers take their oath they swear to uphold the laws of their local jurisdiction, their State, and the United States. They all have a duty to enforce ALL laws valid within their jurisdiction and that includes Federal Immigration Law. Period.
Two things from today's ruling:
1) Given the right national climate, states CAN be effective help at solving the illegal immigration crisis.
2) On the flip side, it appears this ruling means that immigration enforcement is still largely up to the whim of the Executive branch. In an election year, with a bleeding-heart liberal in the Oval Office, that means its even easier for him to turn this country over to the illegals.
If we can't get some kind of law from Congress to require the feds to step up and allow states to round up the illegals, then its time someone sued Obama for the lax enforcement, and for a massive giveaway to the 800,000 "children of illegals" (really just younger illegals) who have no right to be here, and who's entrance into the labor force will make it more difficult for many unemployed Americans and recent college grads to find jobs.
Your argument is weak at best. The number is much higher than 800,000 students, and the Freedom Act will happen, because Republicans now realize the size of the Hispanic and Latino voting block in each swing-state. Why do you think that Mitt Romney is backpedaling on his statements made in 2008, 2010, and 2012. The Republicans are caught.
I agree with Matthew. I see nothing ‘weak’ about his argument. Terry, yours however is. Republicans are back tracking for the same reason all politicians back track when trying to get elected. Nice try trying to sugar coat illegal’s by calling them students btw.
@Terry
P.S. I am nether a republican or a conservative. You are just as brain washed as the right.
The entire country is made up of illegals! We stole this land from this native americans, then treated them like crap! If you want to know how someone is going to treat you, watch how they treated the indigenous people. First it was them, then the blacks...now its the 99%..funny the US keeps doing the same things over and over again...smh!
Notable line from today's Supreme Court Arizona decision, page 15:
"As a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United States."
I think a lot of people forget that; I'm glad the Supreme Court reminds us.
Nor then, should it be listed as a crime, to remove a removeable alien.
If any group should be upset it is the gays and lesbians. Heck, illegals get to be a protected minority before gays do. Hahaha sucks to be illegal or gay.
What GOP will compromise on and what they won't, huh?
I don’t know about you, but no matter how one got into this country, they are still people. The point of giving them some rights to work and live in the United States is to make future generations the ability to become CITIZENS, thus, slowly creating a solution to an inevitable problem.
Could you give me the 8,000 I spent on bringing my spouse here back to me please. Then I will have no complaints. Thanks
What aboult the folks already here AND suffering? What about them? Our own?
Legal immigration....thats how thats accomplished, not breaking into America illegally. Thats why the world has laws. You break them, you get deported period. Thats why lost of people from other countries get on ling waiting lists and in line to do it the right way, go through college and follow the law. The rest need to go home and are, thanks to Obama. Both partoes are for deportation of ilegaks, to some degree, thank goodness!
I agree with you Andy. A person, a human being, cannot be "illegal." Maybe their status is, but NOT the PERSON.
If someone breaks into your house, are you going to let them take your valuables as long as they wash your dishes and then give them the deed? It all started with something illegal.
Wow! You must be the nicest guy in the world. Yes they are people, but why should I work my butt off to provide them and with benefits? I have to show my ID when I get on a plane, when I walk into my office everyday and almost everyplace nowadays; and I am a citizen of this country. Why should illegals get special treatment?
Andy, how many you can accommodate in your house? post your address
I agree with you Andy. I don't see why people keep crying about this. I mean think about it, our ancestors came here illegally at one point and they were later given an opportunity to become legal. No one owns this land.
BS. Illegals need to leave, then come in legally following the law of OUR land. They are humans, but CRIMINALS, otherwise. Get out, until you are invited in by the citizens of this country.
Illegal is still illegal no mater how you put it.
The President - NO president - can really do anything about immigration laws without the cooperation and action of Congress. And, as long as the Republicans control Congress, either by filibuster or majority vote, there will NEVER be any comprehensive immigration reform. The people who are for absolute amnesty will never compromise with the people who want to round up all 13 million illegals, put them on buses, and drive them back to Mexico. (Of course, the latter could not possibly be done, but the right-wing likes to daydream about it).
The author makes the following mistake several times: you don't SIGNAL out a particular person, you SINGLE them out. Annoyed and distracted me almost as much as the comment about Obama causing the huge debt. The debt was caused by the huge contraction of our economy that started before Obama was elected. The federal government got smaller under Obama but the debt got bigger because of the reduced tax revenue. Yet sickofdebt thinks by electing a republican we'll reduce the debt... I can see how you might think that if you put on dark glasses and try to view the world through the reflection of a crazy-house mirror...