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
Come on, man, don't you get it? Mexico DOES NOT WANT to take care of their citizens or even WANT them back(except of course for their money). They're all too eager to unburden themselves to US...like the deadbeat dad who takes his kid(s) to his uncle's, then immediately "goes out for a pack of cigarettes"...what blows my mind is how no one seems to be wise to any of this, even after all these years, and that goes double for the authorities who are in power to stem/stop this now.
At the end of the day Conservatives just are not very smart. They don't understand the world they live in and they let their emotions rule their head. You only have to read the post here to see it.
You learned nothing my friend, nothing. You can't learn anything coming from a Political place. Mexicans are not just going to go home. This is not Pres. Obama's problem, this has been a problem since the 1980's when REAGAN gave Amnesty to everyone. No President or Congess (from either party) has been able to deal with this effectivley.
Obama has more patrols and troops on the border than ever. His administration has deported more people than ever. Know the facts.
There is no hatred towards legal immigrants...only hatred towards illegals.
No. First was the attempted genocide of American Indians.
Wow. Your grammar and use of the English language suggest that you should probably consult an immigrant to learn how to write correctly.
Even all-caps doesn't make it any more true, sorry.
I dont think that Obama realizes that the Hispanic vote in America (that is the Hispanics who are here legally and can actually vote) are pretty split in terms of illegal immigration policies. I for one am for not having any aid to illegal immigrants and they should be deported (the same with any other nationality if they are caught here illegally) our economy is far too depleted to be supporting these illegals and their offspring with free government handouts, I think Obama is in for a surprise come November when the illegals his policies are designed to help cant even legally vote!
About point #1 – It can be easily invalidated. Deportation rests with the DHS, not the states. If Arizona is smart (which they will be), they can keep a list of everyone who they have detained but had to release becuase DHS implemented a "slow response" policy. Release that list to the public every week.
DHS better hope that no one on that list is a wanted criminal already.
Have you ever wondered why nice white people from Europe aren't interested in coming here like they used to? One would think with all that awful socialism and super-high taxes they'd be fleeing the tyranny of big government and knocking down the doors for the privilege of being Americans! Think of all the guns they could buy! And then they could drive everywhere and get fat on all that wonderful suburban food! Instead, the only people who want to come to this capsized country these days are those "others" fleeing libertarian paradises further south. With those emerging economies improving, how much longer do you think that's going to last?
People here are talking about their right to be here because their ancestors work hard! Well if you mean work hard is Genocide Native Americans…well we need a new definition in our dictionaries. Educate yourself before talk non-sense. Today people came here for the same reason your ancestors have back then, except that no one is walking the “trail of tears”. You so afraid that an “illegal” with no education, no English spiking, no skill, is coming here to take away your American dream, you must be very proud about yourself! so now if you deport them you will get your job back, you real state property will go up $$$$, your kids will get to college for free, you will buy a new car every 5 years, you will buy the jet sky and dine out every other day. Everything will be like the times when Clinton was president. So you don’t care how your tax money is been used, people like the city of Bell in California wasting your taxes…..you don’t care about something like this happening right now in you city…all you care is how can I channel my frustrations…with who?...oh I see let’s take my frustration with someone like the illegal’s…is Ok they have no voice, no rights, no dignity….hey my dog have more right than their kids.
The federal government reigns supreme. Yes indeed. A couple of years ago KS was commanded to increase enforcement (and cash penaly) for non-seatbelt use or lose $millions$ of highway funds. The previous KS seatbelt enforcement policy was to give a modest fine if one was not using the seatbelt when stoppped for speeding, etc., or accident involvement.
how about slavery happened throughout the world (welcome to planet earth), whites kill blacks, yellows, reds, and guess what whites too. Blacks also kill other people, the genocides from Africa are committed by black leaders with black soldiers. People kill people, some people are just violent by nature. Immigrants need to go and take the legal route. that is all people want. That is all that I want, because I went through the trouble of legally becoming a part of this country. BTW I am an immigrant.
U.S. is a country of immigrants. So, who's against immigration? No one. What Americans are against is people breaking our laws (by coming into this country illegally), and then being offered all the benefits and rights that come with citizenship. That is a joke! I was under the impression that when people broke laws they went to jail. How naive of me. There are many upstanding people going through the proper channels still waiting to become citizens of this country. How many of them should continue waiting while we open the doors to the lawbreakers?