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
Victory for me family and Mexico. So happy to cross border y work in Arizona. No worry no more. One day we will own what you yankees took from us, and we are having mucho babies. Hehehehe, also getting free money from Obama. Hehehe.
ObamaUnitl2016 says, "Hatred for the brown man is way to obvious". You've got to be kidding. Who cares what color he is, thats not the problem. He's an anti-American communist, that's the problem. He needs to relocated to Cuba where he can finish them off, not us.
You seem credible and sound pretty rational. I'm definitely going to buy into what you just posted
anyone calling a man who graduated from Harvard with a law degree an idiot is looking in the mirror....
Then the Taliban will come in through Canada. Why? They're invited.
In all the analysis of whether Arizona or Pres. Obama came out on top in the Supreme Courts ruling on S.B. 1070 today, the key question is: how well did unemployed Americans fare?
And the answer is: Very well.
Combined with another Court ruling on an Arizona law last year, states now have all the legal room they need to pursue attrition-through-enforcement measures that cause illegal aliens to depart from a state, opening up jobs for unemployed Americans and legal immigrants.
Although headlines have focused on the court knocking down three of four provisions before it, it should be noted that S.B. 1070 began with 14 sections. After all the challenges at several court levels, 11 of those sections are still standing and the court today ruled against only half of the twelfth. The one that was cleared today by the Court was the right of police to question people about their immigration status. This may be the most important provision in causing illegal aliens to leave Arizona, judging by the frenzy of concerned reaction by the pro-amnesty forces and the Obama administration.
by numbers USA
DHS There is no basis in fact on anything you say. This sounds like mimicking the GOP right wing mud-slinging rhetoric they brainwashed programmed you to say mixed in with your own racist anger. It is the uneducated that will bring this country to its knees.
I suggest a new house of legislators whose single duty is to repeal laws. Let legislators pass laws only with a two-thirds majority . . . while the repealers are able to cancel any law through a mere one-third minority. Preposterous? Think about it. If a bill is so poor that it cannot command two-thirds of your consents, is it not likely that it would make a poor law? And if a law is disliked by as many as one-third is it not likely that you would be better off without it?
The liberal, leftist propaganda machine is running at full speed I see. All this ruling means is that state law enforcement can begin to do what the Un-American Obama administration had stopped them from doing, asking people if they are an American, and if not, do you have your papers. This will allow twice as many illegals to be rounded up and handed over to Border Patrol, so they can be kicked out of the country. Hopefully, by this time next year, we will have a new President and a banner year of deportations, somewhere around 800,000 to maybe a 1,000,000. That would be a good start. Every state in the Union should impliment this law and slowly we will take back our country and secure our borders.
You might want to be careful who you call "Un-American". I would propose that your views are very un-American, which has always been a welcoming country to immigrants, including yours and mine, and I highly doubt that any of our ancestors had "legal" immigration papers. We could ask the Native Americans.. but you probably want to deport them also.
obama has deported more illegals than bush or any other republican
Please stop being a child. The rightist propaganda machine is just as active. People like you are a bane to this nation–you divide and divide and divide, all wrapped up in a ridiculous self-righteousness.
Sounds like you'd like to ship out all 'Leftists' too.
What a Great American you are....
@ Rob : Yes, and we Republicans plan to get some long mileage out of that. Oops, sorry Mitt.
By relishing against the American peoples wishes...Obama, today..sealed his fate!
I thought the Supreme Court, mostly Republican appointees, made the decision.
All you Tpublicans ought to take a look at Romney's position on this decision. He does and does not (depending on who you are) agree with the decision. God help us if this idiot gets elected and ever has to make a decision in a crisis.
Does using derogatory terms like 'Tpublican' make you feel like a big man? Because it makes you look like a very, very small one.
And Obama has been a paragon of consistency of late hasn't he
And it took him six hours to decide what to say - seems like he would have had a prepared answer.
I AGREE WITH YOU. HIS IS THE NON CAMPAIGN OF NON REALLY EXISTENT MEET RUIN ROMNEY, A NON ANSWER TO OUR NATIONAL PROBLEMS AND DILEMMAS.LIKE A FALSE COPPER JEWEL, HE IS NO TRUE GOLDEN JEWEL. HE IS ACTUALLY A FAKE. A CEO SPECULATOR PASSING AS A REAL POLITICIAN.
A brief excerpt from Romney's guy's interview:
QUESTION: Is it fair to say that he has no opinion on the Arizona law?
GORKA: "Look, again, I¹ll say it again and again and again for you. The governor understands that states have their own right to craft policies to secure their own borders and to address illegal immigration."
QUESTION: You're not answering – what does he think about the policy in Arizona? Is it fair to say he has no opinion? You're refusing to give us an answer.
ROMNEY'S FAKE STATEMENTS AND FALSE ADS SPEAK FOR HIMSELF. I DO NOT TRUST THE GUY AT ALL
)))))))
THE MORE HE FAKES, THE MORE I DESPISE HIM! HOW DID YOU FALL FOR HIS AD LIES?
We learned we have few rights. Illegal aliens can get more welfare then an American on hard times.
Re: David
Substantiate this. Please enlighten me on how you reached this conclusion, before I think you're simply just making this up...
Go get some welfare assistance, who would stop you. See if you can survive on it besides being a couch potatoes? Go... Go now ... don't whine. Use it all , don't let illegals a chance to get your welfare.. Go.
Go get some welfare assistance, who would stop you. See if you can survive on it besides being a couch potatoes? Go... Go now ... don't whine. Use it all , don't let illegals a chance to get your welfare.. Go.
EDIT YOUR POST. AS IT IS ONE CANNOT TELL WHAT YOU MEAN.
So, I guess you're one of the ill-informed that watches hannity.
I am not saying anyone whould be trrated differently. However, back in the years after WWII, this country, both Republican and Democratic politicians turned a blind eye to everyone who came into the country from a Communist country. Their risking everything to come here was viewed as a vindication of the supremacy of Democracy. This feeling was common until the rush of people from Cuba and then Mexico. I simply feel that common sense should prevail. A six week old baby is not responsible for the fact that his/her perents came here illegally, in fact, may not even kown about it. If that baby is now a contributing, responsible adult with children born in the United States, I see little sense in breaking up a family and depriving children of a parent. If someone came here with the tacit concent of the governemt, I find it hypocritical to now say they should not have come and they and their children, once welcomed,
should face deportation.
Logic should be used in facing the problem, not emotion. A local dairy farmer used migrant help, some of whom had been coming for years and who, upon imspection, were found to be illegals. The government showed up one day, took the illegals away, but left behtind a number of children, some as young as two or three years, completely unsupervised. They were not reported and were not discovered for a number of hours, with soiled diapers, unfed and ssuffering from dehydration. These children, who were American citizens, had to be cared for at the local hospital, and aare now wards of the state. The farmer could not hire anyone to take their place, so he lost his farm. The end result was the deportation of an few hard working, money earning, tax paying illegals, the loss of a dairy farm, and the cost of caring for the children for 18 or so years. I fail to see the economic viability of this action.
I do not pretend to know the answer. I do know that emotional reactions will never solve the problem. Rational analysis,
combinded with a large dose of common sense, is necessary and, unfortunately, I have seen little iof that in many of these responses.
@Mary Anne - excellent comment
I AGREE WITH YOU MARY ANNE
You make some valid points, surprise , surprise many of them emotional or caring, which is a human feeling and emotional.;) A purely roboot-like rational is rather neutral and detached. Would you have practically thrown the sick or dying babies in a trash can? I do not think so; just the fact you spend time posting shows you care. Do non-caring animals post in computers? Nope. Gotcha
I believe you are a good person. 
and will vote for President Obama 
Welcome to real democracy and change, gradual but true.
Time for Texas to step up to the plate. We need to have a Arizona type law passed. Ask a person's status when pulled over. If they're illegal then see if they have phony ID. If they do then charge them with forgery. That is a felony. A felony is reason for deportation. We don't want to support them.
Here's where the Texas part comes in. Demand that the Federal Government has them removed from our State. If they refuse? Threaten secession. It's our right. The Soviet Union came tumbling down by refusing to listen to the People. History has a way of repeating itself. Texas would make a Hell of a Country.
Americans and especially American Veterans should not be forced to pay for foreign nationals or their spawn.
The Supreme Court should be ashamed of themselves.
If this happened I'd move to Texas ASAP. I'd even help shoot down Barrys drones when he attacks Texas.
With Rick Perry as King?? Are you serious???
u r right, Texas would make one Hell of a country and not in a good way. Personally, I would love to see Texas on its own, it would reduce the redneck population of the U.S. significantly. Then the morons in Texas could decide who is an illegal immigrant or not in the "great" country of Texas