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
One thing I've learned from this "immigration" tragedy" (it's actually illegal residency, BTW) is that the leaders of my country, in which I was born to American parents, are more interested in looking out for the best interests of those around the globe then of their own countrymen. They are like a crack addict parent who cares nothing for their own children but who only craves the high that comes from being in power.
The world is a global place. People should be free to live and work wherever they choose. Many Americans go abroad these days, and everybody who was born in the US has parents who came from somewhere at one point in time. The problem is that there is a lot of smuggling and drug trafficking going on around the borders, and people just throw this all in one pot, ignoring the fact that many "born Americans" are also criminals.
The issue that is most disturbing to me: The feds sue a state. The case goes before the highest court in the land. The court stricks down three of the four Az. laws. OUR pres. decides he doesn't like the ruling and refuses to follow the law. First by telling the U.S. HE will not detain/deport a particular group outside of our law makers (congress); then telling Az. HE has decided not to respond the BP to their calls for service – while at the same time thumbing his nose at the court. POTUS is acting like a King, not a Pres who is also obligated and sworn to follow our laws. I fear we, the people of the United States, are in grave danger should this type of behaviour be allowed to cont. Even if you agree with his policies, every american should be conserned with his actions and the manner he does business. A government big enough to give you everything you want, is also big enough to take away everything you have.
Delusional statement.
@eloe, says you. Not says the already in place law of our nation. When every single citizen of this nation has a job, and a riff over there head, then worry about the "poor Mexicans"
Very good Peter, we will need another MLK to show that the part that we AMERICANS play in the world it is way beyond that this petty differences that we are concern. The back bone of power was giving to this country not by luck or by hard work that other countries has done as well, was given by a superior power that we need to understand that we are all equals and we need to play this role very well, We need to lead with Love and respect to our fellow MAN or we will loose this chance like others have lost.
Could you repeat that in English, please?
The White House has stablished an 800 number to call for illegals to complain , now we have open borders and we punish States for trying to make illegals respect the laws, because it is a crime to be illegal, or Obama has made it legal? After all his uncle and aunt were illegals receiving welfare and were not deported or made to retured the money.
We are a joke with this lawsuits "USA agaisnt Arizona"Arpayio , etc, etc, Who the USA represents us Americans or Mexico?
Yet, immigration from Asia outpaces immigration (legal or not) from Mexico. There is an increased number of border patrol agents too.
You are correct in that the government works for us, but "we" continue to vote Congressmen in to office that do nothing. We also need a comprehensive immigration policy and a reformed system, but the Arizona law harkened back to the days of Nazi Germany. I don't know about you, but that isn't the U.S. I want.
...... i love you
I hope you are close behind them leaving.......................
The SCOTUS is an illegitimate court which does not represent the interest of the American people. They have forgotten the definition of government and its first priority which to to protect the citizens of the country.
One fact not mentioned here: Law abiding Americans now have no regard for the authority of a lawless government.
Agree. We're a rouge state. There is no reason for Americans to follow the law. If the government cares more for the citizens of foreign nations, then why should Americans care about our nation. Time for American revolution 2.0
the supreme court is irrelevant. Consent of the governed, States Rights, local control.
Amazing that the President can choose to ignore the law and legislatures and states are denied the ability to enforce it. I think the SCOTUS got it right in principle but wrong in fact. If they made this ruling, they should have sanction the executive for not enforcing the law and implemented a system similar to that which was used in the civil rights era.
Your so-called solutions is what got this country in this mess in the first place. There is but one solution: Deport every single on of them immediately.
I think it is time the Latino community came up and proposed how it believes the issue of illegal immigrants should be handled. How will it ensure that in future there will be no illegal immigrants and if they are what will be done. The struggle is all of us have responsibility here. We want cheap labor but then want them to disappear into the night. Business want to make money on them and then ignore them. The big problem is that there is no free lunch. We thought illegal's were free lunch, but now they want to stay, and have power at the ballot, and we do not want to foot the bill associated with their social costs.
@nik, they have a solution. They want amnesty for all, and to stop " persecuting us". They have no concept of legal and moral behavior.
Soo true...they did the same thing to black people..Blacks built this country for FREE and they've worked to get rid of us ever since...the NERVE...you brought us here and let the hispanics in freely..deal with the repercussions
Immigration is just like the drug scourge in the Great USof A. You guys will pay through the nose for your fix which a lot of impovrished citizens from poorer nations will gladly supply. Same for immigration, the same impovrished nations citizens are drawn to the meanial jobs Americans are not willing to do; such as farm labour, general labourers (Gardeners) , and dish washers in the service sector. I agree if they get sick they can be a burden on the system, but why discard the obvious elephant in the room. It was the nations elite echelon, i.e CEO's and writers of the capitalist free trade agreements that got the US into the dire straits it's currently in. The solution is to re-tool the populace for the new world order through investing in education. if the border can be contained, then fine, but it's only a small problem, when most of your corporations are only built on fradulent paper. Can anybody say Facebook?
Hey people. I am just asking to know – what is the preferred reference term for people living outside of Latin America that come from Latin America and speak Spanish- Latino or Hispanic? According to my dictionary, both are "correct".
I lived in the states many years. Had good grades in school, paid my taxes (more than I should have really), never committed anything close to a crime. Even so, I realized I was not supposed to be there and came back and now live and work in Mexico. Not all of us are how you say. GB
Why anybody continues to vote Dem or Repub i'll never know. Neither party represents the interest of the American people and both are dragging the country down.
AMEN...so true