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
You might want to take another gander at what it means, and it is not landscaping, or clean toilets.
i like how cnn was one of the guys claiming a victory earlier saying that the republicans lost
I live by the border, No one will ever find you illegals.
You just failed, miserably. At trying to make someone look stupid.
Voting for Romney is clearly dumber.
Right on the mark..
At this point I rather have Sarah Palin over Romney. At least she is smarter than MITTWIT
I totally disagree that this will have no impact on the election. Obama has ticked off the American people like he wouldn't believe. I even have liberal friends who say he's gone too far. Obama had better hope that ever person IN MEXICO votes for him because he's going to need it.
I am a Hispanic American Citizen and I am furious beyond belief as is every other Hispanic I know.
We will all be voting for Romney in November.
Need to take the keys away from the Democrats before we go over the cliff.
Yet those same "liberal" friends still won't vote for Romney.
you are a Knucklehead
Don't forget about the ghetto, remember the last election? Obama hit the streets with I'm going to be the first African American to be president... the A. American going to the polls went up five times more then the previous years.
I am a democrat and I have to conclude ( as hard as it is) that Pres Obama has gone too far this time, and I am not quite sure that I can support him on this. I hate to say this. These people have broken the law and the government is letting them get away with it. We have to enforce our laws and the government just does not get it. If these people want to come here fine, but do it the right way, it is that simple. I have even told my senator this and I also plan on telling my congressman ( who is a repub) that they need to stop this.! ( I never thought that I would do that either
) They need to be deported, end of story, they broke the law and they need to be punished just like anyone else who breaks any one of our other laws. I have no sympathy for them.If they are illegal then they have no rights whatsoever! I just don't think that I can vote for Pres Obama at the moment because of this. I won't vote for Romney, but yet I don't know what I am going to do in Nov. I know that this sounds so mean but I am so frustrated by this. Sorry that I am ranting but like I said it is so frustrating 
For me it is about the laws either obey them or get deported.
@Peggy. I doubt it. Most Hispanics that I know don't share that view – unless you mean Cubans but that really only influences Florida.
Obamacare will probably be upheld just by Justice Kennedy so no one needs Roberts. Federal law trumps state law. This was settled by the Civil War. Remember the Confederate state rights. We are one country and states are not countries; no matter what redneck Texas thinks. Republicans are on the wrong side of history. Willard Romney will lose big time in November.
Really, that was what the civil war was about. You say you are the historian, but your history is no where near the accepted truth of state vs federal laws.
I'm not fond of the Republicans, but you do realize in your Civil War reference that the Republicans were actually the good guys (the Union) in the Civil War, right? The Southern Democrats were what ended up being the Confederates back then. So saying the Republicans are on the wrong side of history in that context is false.
The Supreme Court is wrong about the laws to regulate Immigration. The laws defining Legal Immigration are different than the law defining ILLEGAL TRESPASS< and they know it. The LAWS of the AG say he shall have the POWER AND DUTY to protect America from the Egress of alien tresppass....pure and simple. Time to break down all these millions of pages of laws. Repel the idea of the Supreme Court jokers.
It cracks me up to see people making differentiating arguments between Romney and Obama. They both love Wall Street. They'll both support the Military Industrial Complex... and continue our war policies in the Middle East, And they'll both take us further down the road of exploitation by various corporate interests. Arguing for one over the other just demonstrates how the powers-that-be have most of us running around tilting at windmills.
Ah, the joys of being a CNN spin writer....
The states have the right to repeal this Immigration authrotiy if they do it by a certain number. I do not think anyone fears this, and doubt if the American Public is going to deal with this insult with trepidation. Au Contraire.
Ouch!!! I have a headache now CNN!
They are voting for him only because they are politically illiterate.
It is our job to educate these individuals.
Everybody that I know who voted for Obama lst time around won't be making that mistake again.
Many are humiliated by the fact that they voted for him.
Many Democrats, some of them long term democrats are saying they will not vote for Obama or their state representatives or senator. They do not like the direction the extremist members of the Democrat party have been taking America.
Sooooo...they prefer the right wing extremist direction they want??????
Peggy – I have to wholeheartedly agree with your friends. I, too, voted for Obama in 2008 on the hopes that he could unite the parties and "change" America in a positive way. I am so mad that he "tricked" me into all his false lies, so I will be voting Romney in 2012.
You and your friends sound Ike geniuses! Hahaha
Peggy, it seems to me you are the political illiterate. The repubs made it clear that this President was never to succeed in anything by blocking everything he tried to accomplish. So if you and your kind want to vote for Mitts the pits you go right ahead. Just goes to show that people like you ARE the problem.
Nice try, but that only works at the Salon.
You are correct – I won't be voting for Obama again (and I am a life-long democrat).
He is certainly better then mcain would have been, and millions of times better then romney the cult member could be
Obama did a far better job than McCain would have done, and he will do a far better job than Romney would do. Republicans should be embarrassed that the best they could come up with is Romney. I do not know a single person who voted for Obama who regrets it. They recognize that the Republican party has done everything in its power to discredit Obama and keep the US from recovering from the recession, just so they had a chance of recovering the White House. The Republicans, along with the Tealiban, will sacrifice the economic well being of this country for political gain. Wake up. The Republicans do not care about the middle class and they care even less about the poor. Chances are, they do not care about you other than obtaining your vote in November.
You should open you eyes and ears then, because I know plenty who regret voting for him.
And everybody I know who voted for George W. Bush won't make the mistake of voting a Republican back into the White House. Mitt offers a return to the policies of Bush. That's MUCH scarier than Obama.
I agree. Obama has let us down in a few areas - Afghanistan, Iraq, "MJ is an inappropriate subject."
The news says Obama smoked reefer like a chimney for about 10 years, but now his boys are busting medicinal shops in a few states.
Can't wait till Romoney is elected and we can get these Mexicans out of Arizona. Obama and his jews are ruining this country
JoeMoe – The state of Arizona is never going be anything other than heavily Mexican Heritage. In fact the state's culture is steeped in the Mexican tradition. If you want something different, you may want to move to Montana, Nebraska, Iowa, etc.
Arizona belonged to mexico before it became a state. so you have a feavy hispanic population in arizona that are as american as anyone.
I generally agree that Obama is a mediocre president at best, but who exactly are these "jews" that are running the country with him? If you had said Chicago-style corrupt political thugs, I would have agreed, but I don't particularly perceive Obama as some overwhelming friend of the Jews.
Romoney got bored with his millions and decided to run for president.
Increased taxes to take care of these freeloaders/
You mean these "freeloaders" who probably work harder than you do for less money? Having some knowledge of what you're talking about would probably help but then again it's often said that ignorance is bliss.
and to day Obama and his administration play the most stupid childish game to let Arizona out of the country. The federal government is trying to bypass the su[rememe court dicision: do not let Aeizona check Obama's illegal voters!!!!!
Actually, you're a moron. Most of these people pay into the system in the form of payroll taxes and sales taxes. That's money that they will never see any benefit from. To describe someone who comes to this country illegally to look for work as a freeloader is to expose yourself as a narrow-minded and uninformed bigot.