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
In the words of Bush when he was in his right mind, Fool me once, fool me twice but not a third time. President Obama 2012!!!! Vote Republican congress OUT!!! Vote Bainer out!
@LIB: What has obomer done for ur country(i mean liberia)? Don't give ur vote just becuz he's black. He's a failed weak leader! I hope u later get some sense in ur head
"We the people" wield the power to correct the mistake that is Obama is November.
The far right USED to be decent people but as they say, today even Ronald Reagan would not want to be a part of the ignorance. Romney is so dumb he has to Buy his way into Washington on the money of a few billionaires. President Obama's money came from folks who are Americans and will still come from real true Americans. We don't want a pyscho in Washington who assaults folks.
Funny, the last I remember in history class was the far right ending slavery!!!!! Go spit some more trash hey
That comment just shows that you slept through History class.......At the time of the Civil War, the Republicans were the liberals
c: the far right did not work to end slavery. It was absolutely the work of Progressives. You might be confused, because in those days the Progressives were welcomed in the Republican party... but they were definitely left of center politically.
thats actually completely wrong. republicans ended slavery and they were far-left. republicans back then were liberal and democrats were conservative. you shoulda paid more attention in class, id say
The left promote illegal immigration / aka legalized slavery. I don't care how you look at it, the situation is nothing more than legalized slavery.
No, you weren't paying attention, obviously. I am so sick of hearing this argument because anyone who uses the "Lincoln was a Republican" argument just looks really really dumb to anyone who knows. Yes Lincoln was a Republican, the very first Republican President. HOWEVER: back then the Republicans were very very far LEFT, not right, not center, but left. The party ideologies flipped near the turn of the 20th century. I do love that the right tries to take credit for the single largest expansion of federal powers over the states in the history of our country though. You do realize that the true underlying cause of the civil war was the federal government saying it has more power than the states, don't you? You don't think that sounds like a "far right" policy does it? So, thanks for playing but try again C.
Supreme Court has gone liberal.
YEA!!!!!
Isn't it beautiful?
Excuse me, Both sides suck! Until we elect officials that are actually for Americans, we will be stuck between a rock and a hard place just like now.
95 % of illegal Immigration could be stopped in six months if the government really wanted to. Folks for once face the facts. What you, I, and the guy next door thinks mean absolutely nothing. Those illegals that so many of you profess to hate make millions, and millions of dollars for people with connections in BOTH parties. They are the people that have always ran things. Do you think they care if the fools that pay taxes (that's you and me) have to pay for the welfare of these people. WAKE UP!
Does Arizona require proof of citizenship or immagrant status to issue a driving licence? Also, does this mean that everyone in Arizona must carry proof of citizenship or legal status, or only people who look Mexican?
PROFILING AT IT'S FINEST!!
Good question!
sheila: "3. This is a nation founded by and for immigrants, on whose backs this country was actually built and continues to be built"
Brilliant analysis. The U.S. was "founded by" immigrants, therefore all foreigners have a right to immigrate to the U.S. No matter what strain, burden or overfilling occurs.
Right?
The stupidity on CNN is something to behold. It really is.
Exactly! What part of "ILLEGAL ALIEN" do they not understand???
those immigrants were legal !!!! hello !!!!
And you should learn how to speak Spanish so like me you can hear all of the different ways in which they rip the taxpaying citizens of this country from their own lips!
Care to elaborate?
Who cares...the supreme court justices have no credibility any more. They are nothing but ideologically driven. Justice has nothing to do with what decisions they make. Always split exactly along political lines in their decision making. The right wing Thomas, Kenedy, Alito, and Roberts are especially loonie. Craziness is what that court is about now.
You forgot the most radical: Scalia.
Don't let Obama sell out our country with these Supreme Court Jokers, fight back, vote republcina and let's get rid of all these nuamces that say we are subjects and this is not a democracy. This is OUR LAND, not ILLEGALS LAND and NOT OBAMA's LAnd.
Vote against OBAMALAND. Tell him and the Supreme Court SMACK,SHut iT, Rift, closed.
How ridiculous to call this Obama. It is the Supreme Court... which is full of Republican picks. This is not a dictatorship, so stop blaming Obama for what the other two branches are jacking up.
What it Means: the Federal Government is not representing the will of the people in this matter.
We didn't learn 5 things, we learned 9 "Things".
So if our federal government doesn't do its job, what's left? We'd be awash in illegal immigrants. Oh wait!! We already are. Does that mean our federal government isn't doing its job? Right again!
Papers; what papers are needed? Driver's licence, passport; or what?