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
The author of this article states "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" Well rabid LIBERALS at CNN the issue is not immigration it's ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION, interloping, invasiion etc. People who cross an international border illegally aren't any more immigrants than someone robbing a bank is a "CUSTOMER". Get it right. Immigration isn't just a matter of geography it is a legal process.
And there is no point in Romney campaigning in CA or Obama in TX. Regardless of whether they are deeply affected by "ILLEGAL" immigration or not. Texas is red and Cali is blue and that won't change for this election. Neither state is in play for both candidates.
America was made strong because of immigration, legal immigrants who wanted to be Americans, unlike those who now come to our country to simply pick our pockets, whats so wrong to expect those who come to america to follow our laws.
You forgot number 6:
6) The Obama administration has "sold" my citizenship of the United States for some votes.
Spell check.... police weren’t signaling people out specifically ...."signaling"?
This is a horrible precedent – the President of the U.S. siding with foreigners over their own citizens. Shameful. And the only Watson being is that he wants the votes. unbelievable.
Simple solution.
Start fining companies for hiring illegals.
I'm talking really big fines.
That will cure the problem without all this political hogwash.
The reason is because even if you fail to see it, it has been made an issue not of foreigners or of immigration but about an ethnic group in general.
good job supreme court.
The "show me your papers" provision is the part i thought this was all about? The Feds/IRS isn't out in force on the streets and for sure R not fixing the problem or even slowing it down! state authority will need to be implemented in the bigger scale of things, and the fact that even in obvious situations they can't ask for papers... blech whats this good for?
If I were leading a certain kind of life I know I'd have several complete sets of credible papers to display.
exactly, we have millions of criminals from all over the world with false ID. if it gets too hot for them, they go else where. LETS GET THEM OUT OUT AMERICA!
So let me get this straight. If the supreme court overturns Obamacare its judical activism because the law was pass by an elected body. So sincethe court ruled more in favor of Obama what do you call it?
The right decision.
Judicial activism = a ruling you don't like.
Liberal hypocrisy.
Terrorists come in from Canada's borders easier than workers come in from Mexico's! What is the Fear we are protecting ourselves from?
Job loss, increased crime, higher govt expenses for all public services, schools, and medical care to name just a few.
.........the most powerful fear of all: fear of Otherness.
It's simply amazing that we have a President of the United States of America who has chosen to uphold his oath of office to enforce only the laws to which he supports. Oblame-O has brought pure DISGRACE to the Oval Office. I think a more important story to cover is the discovery that roughly half of the American population suffers from downs syndrome as they approve this Failure in Chief and all his policies that have injected nothing but uncertainty into the economy, or have been/will be shot down due to this community organizer being in over his head. It took the worst recession since the Great Depression to get this moron elected. Congrats.
You belittle your own cause by coming into an adult conversation and throwing 5th grade level names at the President. Keep it up. Please keep it up.
Richard Nixon was more open and less corrup than this administration. Obama has set us up for a Depression
You aren't merely a bigot, you are uninformed. There have been more deportations by far under this adminstration than under the previous one.
starquelius has issues.... obama in 2012
What everyone seems to ignore is those thousands of illegal immigrants who came here from China, Korea, VietNam and other communist controlled countries. I know a couple who fled China because the wife was pregant with their third child, a girl, who would have been killed on birth. They came in through Canada, settled here, opened a restuarant, and raised their three girls. They paid all taxes, social security, and employed many non Chinese in their various, highly successful businesses. They are now eligible for social security, which they have paid into for the thirty-odd years they have been here, but are afraid to apply because they are "illegal aliens". As are their children, all of whom have gone to college and are a Doctor, a teacher and one who now runs the family businesses. All are married with children of ther own, all would be deported under Ariziona's law and the Republian adgenda, and all would be exicuted if retured to China. What are the feelings form the various writers concerning illegals like these and all those who fled Poland, Hungary, Russia, East Germany, etc.
You cannot expect one country to absorb the entire sins of the world, especially during these GLOBAL economic times. You libs are in serious trouble worrying about ILLEGAL immigrants holding jobs when LEGAL citizens are struggling. Good luck getting your 18-25 kids out to vote for more hope and change while Pedro just took their job.
Nothing preventing them from applying for citizenship.
Very good point Mary Anne. People in the United States do not see the whole picture. I glad to see somebody with a little common sense.
Nobody is ignoring those thousands of illegals, Mary Anne. Yet you seem to expect us to turn a blind eye to the fact that they "ignored" our laws time and time again over the years and we should now take pity on them?
I don't think so.
Illegal is illegal, get over it. I applaud all that have gone through the system as it was intended and the heck with the rest. If we allow this law to be broken then whats the difference if someone walks up to you and kicks you in the groin? Are we just going to follow the laws set for all or just the ones we feel like following? This country is going to hell in a hand basket and Obama is leading the charge.
My feelings are that nobody gets a free pass, no matter what country they come from, I see Socialists/Comunists they never go to Cuba, N Korea, etc allways is the States and I know for a fact Chinese doctors are the worse in the planet, I have to question them all the time, they do not belive on treatments fro anybody over 50, no country in the worls is as passive as is ours with illegal inmigrations, in NY traditional Italian and Jewish neighborhoods are now Chinese.
All this people do not have medical records, police backrounds, etc. No illegals period, one can not go to their countries and stay withoit papers and an ID.
Are inmigrations laws made to be broken by the Federal Goverment?
Obama the candidate promised immigraton reform during his first year. For that he got the Latino vote. Obama controlled the House, Senate, and Oval Office for his first 2 years and he could have pushed through the Dream Act and any other reform he wanted and immigration reform never made it to his desk. Obama has deported more illegal Latinos than any President before him. And now, Obama comes out pandering for votes once again with empty promises and short term smoke and mirrors solutions. Obama believes that latinos are STUPID and he can fool them a second time. ONe thing Obama will do, he is heading this country to a second recession that will be far more damaging to jobs than the first one, and when that happens the Latino community will have 60% unemployment - they will all leave the US out of necessity.
You seem to be suggesting that they should be treated differently than Latino/Latinas. That's racism, plain and simple. All should receive equal treatment under law. The language used in the rhetoric today makes it clear that this is about race and the need to create an "other" to use as a scapegoat.
illegals are in every state. This is a national issue or Obama wouldn't have bothered to exempt 800,000 illegals from justice for 2 years.
That's why more have been deported under Obama than any other President, you moron wing nuts need to learn to check your facts....
LEGAL IMMIGRANTS, Sheila, what part of THAT don't you get?? People are against ILLEGAL immigrants. D'OH!
so as long as Congress kicks the immigration can down the road, they leave it up to the States and Courts to hash it out...there is no leadership here....
They are doing the WORK that the "unemployed" here refuses to do! The farmers in the South have said this again and again....are YOU willing to work in the field for the low pay?? If Not, we will be buying 2 dollar tomatoes!
None of those workers has to be illegal. Green cards and temporary work permits are accessible for these workers.
They have to pass citizenship tests that I can't even pass, and it costs money!
No... you can't just fill paperwork to get a greencard as if you are getting a passport, same for a work permit.
If you enter the usa illegally you can't get a work permit you need to leave the country and can be punished with up to 10 years ban before be able to request any permit or visa, and greencard can only be obtain through marriage (unless you are a minor and one of your parents is usa citizen, then he can request that you get a greencard)
Thank You.....I agree 100%
I agree.
Rob, I greatly fear you are an optimist! I'm expecting to pay at least $4.00 for a tomato, very soon...
How much are tomatoes now? Is $2 good or bad?
immigrants get paid 100 dollars a day to pick vidalyia onions where im from,I know a lot of Americans that really could use a 100 a day and if you really need a job then you will do the work
That's all bullcrap! I know people with degrees who have lost permanent jobs but are out there making any money they can doing lawn work, some are cutting trees, and some are washing and waxing cars in between their part time sewer and drain job. But guess what? The folks I'm referring to aren't getting free medical and dental care, foodstamps, wic, or free lunches at school. What they will get though, unlike the illegals who are getting all the free perks I just mentioned, is to pay their taxes
Why I agree some here may be anti-Latino, just disagreeing with the Left, does not a Racist make. I for one agree with the decision but disagree with Obama for not upholding our laws. I fully support what the the Statue of Liberty states about the US being ".....lamp beside the golden door" BUT you can still come here legally and live by those words. Worse yet I don't care if they are White's from Switzerland, every attempt should be made to come here legally as my Grandfather did in 1945 from the Philippines. I sympathize with immegrants and do believe they should be treated like human beings but Obama is clearly just trying to sway the vote. Obama is far from being a dictator or criminal but for examples purposes only, even Al Capone opened soup kitchens to get the support of the people.
My friend, the difference is that in 1945, when your grandpa came to the United States, there were up 25 motives or clauses that Immigration approved so you could apply to obtain at spot the Legal Residence.....Do you know how many clauses survived the blade of the Republicans at this day? Only 10...But just a minute, 4 are dedicated exclusively to legalize the Cubans.....So for the people wishing to come legally, they can use only 6 motives...And many times take 10 years for getting the approval. .A big difference to 1945.