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
I should have been clearer. I understand they are federal, however the very laws Arizona was trying to pass are laws our government should already be enforcing but fall way, way short of doing. Arizona just wants the ability to do that which our government seems so hesitant to do.
Why is wet foot / dry foot doctrine only applied to one segment of the hispanic population, cuban refugees are given special dispensation while mexicans are not... haitians, domicans all come from the the hemishere but only cubans seep in to lower americas.
Give a specific example of a law that you're referring to, please.
I think the laws AZ was/is trying to implement were wrong and not in line with fed law. In this country, we do not ask for papers based of race. No matter the charge. They tried something similar in WWII. They are doing the same thing with those of arab decent. Though the ends are just, they do not justify the means. Why are folks so willing to suspend the rights of others will simultaneously screaming about losing theirs?
The Federal Government under Obama has deported almost as many illegal immigrants in the past 3 years as GW Bush did in 8 years. So don't say the Federal Government is doing it's part. It's definitely been enforcing the laws on the books more since 2009.
The most important lesson learned is that the United States lacks the leadership to break the gridlock in Washington.
Instead of being agreed to by discussion and concensus we have to resort to the courts.
Current leadership accepts no responsibility and just blames somebody else.
Great Leaders unite and motivate a population towards a common goal. We have the Great Divider in Obama.
So how should he be breaking this gridlock? Do tell.
Republicans aren't interested in discussion and consensus, they're only interested in making Obama look bad, no matter what the cost. We have a court system for a reason, and the fact that even the more conservative judges ruled in favor of the White House's positions just infuriates the haters.
I would hardly believe that President Obama is a divider. IF anything, He has brought many ;people together. He tried across the aisle but McConnell cut that off with declaring not to work with the president on anything. How you ignorant people can say that President Obama is a divider is beyond me. We intelligent Americans know who the GREAT DIVIDERS are...... The GOP. Thanks for all the hard work this ;president has done. He is a strong man and a focused one. THis country is lucky to have him in the mist of all the racist jealous GOP republicans and tea partiers. But we will be voting thiem OUT in November. The voice of REAL Americans have not spoken YET!
I always find it funny when they accuse Obama of dividing the country... like the country was oh so unified before Obama took office!
Incompetent and childish president and administration to be correct~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Intended or not Obama is a divider. Yes he has tried to compromise and reach across the aisle. However his polices have divided the country more than any time since JFK. I’m not an Obama hater but you "Obama is the messiah" types are just as pathetic and brain washed as the far right.
checking
savings
I know what I learned – that GOP will make sure that nothing gets done until they are elected (maybe) – and then they will pass the same ideas with a tweek on it and call it as their own, patting themselves on the back for a job well done when it passes.
Cygne?
Abuse of federal authority. States rights. Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves. We are now an authoritarian regime in Washington D.C.
The view of the Founding Fathers on this issue is irrelevant. The states were effectively 13 countries at that time - countries that could do what they wanted, including enslaving blacks. That changed with the Civil War and the Civil War Amendments. That war and those amendments fundamentally changed the relationship between the states and the federal government. That is what the war was about. Southerners can't seem to get over the fact that they lost the war.
Show me your papers. As an American citizen born and raised by American parents, I always carry my papers on me. What is the problem with that?
Agreed. I am hardly a GOP/neocon but I really don't get how the far left frames this issue.
I'll take bets on this that you don't. How shall it be proved?
What papers are those? I have a birth certificate issued by the Department of State. I don't carry that. I do have a driver's license with me sometimes, but not always. I regularly bike around. Even then, does a driver's license prove legal residency?
no problem, only if you look Hispanic you will be jailed, even when you show your paper, which I bet say nothing about your citizenship. What's wrong with that?u think nothing .. wait to get arrested by a stupid cop.
What paper do you carry? lol You don't understand. born and raise on America how about your ancestors ?
Ever heard of Nazi Germany?
That's all nice and feel good Andy, but for every illegal immigrant Obama gives a job to, There's an American citizen who didn't' get it.
Obama himself is personally hiring them and giving them jobs? Man, busy guy.
Exactly right. That's the same as "sending jobs overseas." Isn't that what people have been accusing Romney of doing?
@Raven Obama doesn't give a job to anyone unless they are in the employ of the Federal government. Business gives jobs to people, whether they came to this country legally or not.
@Peggy I voted for President Obama first time around and am considering it a second time. I am not the least bit embarrassed by my vote for President. I am totally embarrassed by my votes for Congress. They have achieved basically nothing in the last 2 years.
Anyone who supports illegal immigration supports slavery.
Raven,
immigrants existed well before Obama last I looked?
Any President does not not give out jobs, I disagree with your statement.
Raven, where did you get the 1+1 statistic on jobs being taken away from American citizens? Please provide your source.
This was decided by a majority Republican court.
Do you cut up chickens and mow lawns?
If you lose a job oppurtunity to an "illegal alien" lets be honest you have a lot more to blame in yourself than Obama.
Obama isn't giving illegals jobs. Your local business are. Look around next time you venture out every kitchen in every major restaurant chain and even smaller restaurants are stocked with illegals. Take a trip to your local farmlands you'll see the same thing. Large and small construction companies-ditto.
Total BS ! Obama and his Fed's don't want to scare away the next generation of Democratic voters, so they sue Arizona to stop enforcing Federal Laws ! And win ! What ? ILLEGAL ALIENS ARE STILL ILLEGAL. They are not a "protected class" or an " underseved minority" or "under-represented" or "Here To Stay". They are criminals. They broke into our country, cut the line in front of upstanding law-abiding immigrants who may have waited years, stole our healthcare money, education money and our jobs. Round them up like cattle and herd them over the border. Good riddance.
"Broke into our country"? How did the whole southwest become part of the United States? We invaded and conquered part of Mexico!
Plus immigrants take jobs that citizens won't do at the low wages the "job creators" are willing to pay.
Stole our jobs!. Have you heard how many unemployed Americans have rushed to Georgia to pick the fruit that the evicted Mexicans used to pick. Well there were a few but the work was too hard.
""As a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United States.""
Then it should be. America can not sustain a perpetual underclass of people who do not speak our language, do not share our values (The rule of law first among them), do not respect our history, do not understand our culture, and generally have no interest in this country except to live here to make money.
Is it possible to "round up" 10-12 million illegals? Probably not. Is it possible to make it so that the vast majority of them cannot find work, or housing, or schooling, or any other other things which provide benefit to being here illegally?
Almost certainly. And if we can make it so that it doesn't pay for an illegal to be here, most of them will go home. where they belong.
Why do the keep calling this an immigration ruling. This law does not in any way change provisions regarding immigration. It only affects how illegal immigrants are identified. It is an illegal-immigration ruling.
#4 Will this be huge issue for Nov elections.. YES ! Obama wants to divert attention from economy to Immigration. This is the priority for Obama Adminstration. This is the Strategy to get Obama elected for 2nd term.
I agree with you 100%. These illegals should have no rights whatsoever. They need to be caught and shipped back to where they came from with all their illegal babies!
Just one thing stopping your idea – corporation hire illegals. If you have time for a field-trip, go visit Southern California, Arizona, Texas, Colorado, Nevada, Florida, Iowa, and the upper Midwest. There you will find folks working on farms, at golf course country clubs, building houses, cleaning rooms, mowing grass, cleaning swimming pools, and cleaning homes and washing cars for wealthy Americans. While people complain, they quickly realize that Hispanics and Latinos are hard workers, who work for less money than average Americans, and the corporations are all about profit, not following federal and state law. When was the last time a corporate executive went to jail for hiring an illegal worker? As for those hard working folks, just think what it would be like if they paid taxes, which the corporations actually deduct from their pay every week. Who are the fools in this story?
Cyndee!
Most of your forefathers came to the United States as illegals and made their way through immigration issues to become U.S.Citizens so that you can proudly call yourself an American. Most of the problem with you people is the colour of the skin of these so called 'illegals'. Had they been immigrants from Eastern Europe, most of you would have been totally fine with it.
I BET your EUROPEAN WHITE ANCESTORS had no papers whatsoever to invade and steal lands from the American Indians.
You do realize at some point your ancestors were illegal when they arrived to this country, and that their children were never illegal upon birth. Like it or not, the children are the future of our country, independent of their nationality, first generation american or not, they are the future doctors, lawyers, teachers, and possible politicians. So you should really start being nice, or in the least bit courteous to your fellow neighbors, because I'm sure you wouldn't enjoy having a racist doctor attending you. A racist created by the hatred and biggotry spread by people like you.
Yes, because this is Obama's voter base. This is why he and Eric Holder are suing an number of states to keep them from removing the dead and illegals from their voter rolls.
Obama must be stopped at all costs.
Hate to break it to you, Peg, but illegals can't vote....and, btw, it's Romney's below minimum wage worker base.
Peggy:Your imagination must be stopped at all costs.Stupidity from right wing extremsts must also be stopped at all costs.
@Andy – Believe me when I say im not a heartless monster. I believe everyone has the right to pursue happiness and prosperity, however, at last count there were over 10 million estimated illegal aliens in this country. At what point do we say enough is enough? Whether you like it or not, these people are not contributing to our system. I dont believe they're taking jibs from us but I do believe they are burdening an already overwhelmed system (I.e., healthcare, schools, etc).
I do believe that our government should make the process of naturalization much, much easier but, until then, we have to have some kind of accountability in place.
I agree with you that it is enough of illegal immigration. Accountability should be applicable to all sides: i) the illegal person that came here illegaly (althought the majority of them came to provide basic needs of survival for them and their families and not with the intent to change this country or to breack any laws), ii) the US Goverment that during economy growth allowed all these people to come, to leave and to be exploited and iii) the american people who have been employing and enjoying tipper and nice services that came from the work of the illegal, exploited immigrants and whom were not bother with their presence when there was large economy growth. I think the law or police going forward need to be divided into 1) address the illegal immigrants that are here (to be clear their children born in the US weren't born illegaly and deserve to have a parent) and so allow them to fixed their immigration status by paying some penalty and 2) stop any future illegal immigration from happening by creating ways that make it unfeasiable for them to work and leave here and enforcing the law.
You mean Elvis culture?
Canadians: If you are smart start building your fences now for in 25 years America will be picked clean by the locusts from our south. You will be next.