Here’s the definitive summary of the ruling from SCOTUS Blog. (If you don’t follow the SCOTUS Blog, you should be… shame on you!)
Here is a rundown on the Court’s ruling with respect to each relevant challenge:
1. Police Checks. Section 2(B) of the law requires the police to check the immigration status of persons whom they detain before releasing them. The Court held that the lower courts were wrong to prevent this provision from going into effect while its lawfulness is being litigated. It was not sufficiently clear that the provision would be held preempted, the Court held. The Court took pains to point out that the law, on its face, prohibits stops based on race or national origin and provides that the stops must be conducted consistent with federal immigration and civil rights laws. However, it held open that the provision could eventually be invalidated after trial.
2. State Law Crime of Being In The Country Illegally. Although federal law already makes it illegal for someone to be in the country without proper authorization, Section 3 of the Arizona statute also makes it a state crime, subject to additional fines and possible imprisonment. The Court held that this provision was preempted and cannot be enforced. The Court held that Congress has left no room for states to regulate in this field, even to implement the federal prohibition.
3. Ban on Working In The State. Section 5(C) of the statute also makes it a state crime for undocumented immigrants from applying for a job or working in the state. It is also held preempted as imposing an obstacle to the federal regulatory system. Because Congress obviously chose not make working in the country without proper authorization a federal crime, states cannot enact additional criminal penalties Congress decided not to impose.
4. Warrantless Arrest Of Individuals Believed To Have Committed A Deportable Crime. Section 6 of the statute authorizes state law enforcement officials to arrest without a warrant any individual otherwise lawfully in the country, if law enforcement officials have probable cause to believe the individual has committed a deportable offense. The Court held that this provision is preempted. Whether and when to arrest someone for being unlawfully in the country is a question solely for the federal government.
Very interesting…. SCOTUS has left no doubt that immigration laws should be the realm of the Federal Government.
One major ruling left for this year… the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare. That will come Thursday.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
I’m not sure I would call it a “split” decision. It sounds like Arizona won on 1/2 point out of 4, i.e., mostly lost. And like the States are still basically supposed to roll over and allow illegal immigration, with all of the burdens that imposes on the States, even when the Federal government refused to do its job of protecting the nation’s borders.
Now, can the states sue the feds for not imposing the law? Or can they sue for cash to pay for the burden the states must bear because the feds have been directed to not do their job?
ILC – Fair point (as I make in my post above)…. but the part of the law they won on is the one that stirred the most passions. So it is “weighted” more in my mind.
It is law abiding taxpayers on the hook for the rising costs of illegal immigration. Here in my state, you must have a drivers license AND auto insurance to own and operate a vehicle. Unless you are here illegally. If an illegal causes an accident, he faces no penalty unless there is a death or severe injury, the h€ll with the property rights of citizens or legal residents. So auto insurance rates continue to spiral upwards… Hubby and I pay over $400 month for auto insurance and only carry liability insurance on our oldest vehicle. This is just one way the taxpayer gets the shaft from illegal immigration.
Another appalling cost is bilingual education! My son played on inner city, all Hispanic Spanish speaking team for a year. We were the only ones who spoke English, even the coach. Few of the parents spoke English at all. Most of the kids spoke English but now struggle in high school because they don’t comprehend it well enough to succeed in school. I know of one set of parents with 4 children that have never married and I assume this is for tax and benefit reasons. Another family now has two babies by their teenage daughter and 15 YO son, both out of wedlock. Most of the boys never had a parent show up at a game the entire year. The cost to society will continue to grow unless we stop and at least partially reverse the flow of uneducated people. We have enough of those who are already legally here!
Arizona can now rewrite their law to fit the decision and keep on trucking until the most important point is struck down in some future court.
Arizona lost big. Their law is almost toothless. It is time to change the federal law to enable state enforcment of their sovereigty. It is simply ridiculous that Arizona cannot enforce their own borders.
#2 – Now, can the states sue the feds for not imposing the law? Or can they sue for cash to pay for the burden the states must bear because the feds have been directed to not do their job?
If I were Gov. Brewer, that’s exactly what I would do. TODAY.
Doubt it.
Nope. Remember California Gov Pete Wilson tried to sue the Fed to pay for unfunded mandates imposed on CA…. And lost! It was, if I remember correctly, also immigration related.
At the risk of sounding kookier than normal, I’m starting to wonder which state will start using the word “secession”?
As the country continues to fracture along numerous fault lines, it seems inevitable, doesn’t it?
If at first you don’t secede, try, try again. – Florence King
SoCalRobert, I think that scenario is within the realm of possibility if Obama is re-elected. I don’t it is necessarily likely, but possible. As for which state will be first, I’d say Arizona given how much Obama doesn’t seem to like that state and given its recent string of liberty-affirming laws (I realize that is the obvious answer). Some other possibilities might be states with large energy reserves like Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, and West Virginia. I really think it is possible that, if Obama is re-elected, he will turn hard left. Again, I don’t think that is necessarily likely, but possible given his past.