The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of one of the provisions of Arizona’s controversial immigration enforcement law and preempted others:
The Supreme Court upheld a key part of Arizona’s tough-immigration law but struck down others as intrusions on federal sovereignty, in a ruling that gave both sides something to cheer in advance of November elections where immigration is a major issue.
The court backed a section of the Arizona state law that calls for police to check the immigration status of people they stop.
That section was one of four at issue before the high court. The others make it a crime for immigrants without work permits to seek employment, make it a crime for immigrants to fail to carry registration documents, and authorize the police to arrest any immigrant they believe has committed a deportable offense.
Five justices were in the majority choosing to strike down the three provisions. Dissenting justices argued that the whole law should have been upheld.
That’s a ruling that won’t make anybody happy.
Looks like ruling on the PPACA will come on Thursday.
I’m not quite sure how this is being described as a partial Obama victory. I think the state criminalization of immigration tends to make enforcement more difficult than treating it as a non-criminal violation since there are more rights against criminal punishment than against deportation or detention. The big item, turning local and state police into immigration constabularies sets the stage for more i.d. requirements that will drive libertarians crazy and a series of decisions by the federal government to order the release of illegal aliens in local jails that will undercut federal claims that it is enforcing immigration laws.
It is true that local/state governments will face potential civil rights lawsuits if they implement this rule poorly, but that’s true of all rules.
Since the commenters over at OTB are treating the decision as a complete victory for the Obama Administration I gather that anything short of a disastrous rout is now a resounding victory. I think it’s a peculiar result resulting from the Humpty Dumpty immigration policy the federal government has put in place.
It seems to me the political horserace is trumping honest assessments, at least for the initial reactions. Priority #1 seems to be spinning the result (whatever it is) to your side’s political advantage.
I think that’s mostly doubleplusgood duckspeak. I seriously doubt that most of the commenters have read the Arizona law or the decisions. They don’t have any real firsthand knowledge of the case or of the decision and are being told by biased analysts what to believe.
I notice, too, that there’s no outpouring of rage against a politicized court when the 5-4 decisions go in the direction of the Breyer-Ginsburg-Sotomayor wing of the court.
“I notice, too, that there’s no outpouring of rage against a politicized court when the 5-4 decisions go in the direction of the Breyer-Ginsburg-Sotomayor wing of the court.”
This is a speculative question:
Since the immigration decision was a ‘mixed’ one, with the majority of it being overruled. Will this tend to soften or buffer any accusations of a ‘politicized’ court, from the left, should the ACA ruling favor overturning the law?
So true. It’s only terrible judicial activism when the decision is one you don’t like.
jan, I don’t think Scalia reading a statement today critical of Obama’s recent immigration policy helps with perceptions. That said, Obama’s actions appeared to be on the mind of more than one justice. Alito made an interesting comment in his partial concurrence:
“The United States’ argument that §2(B) is pre-empted, not by any federal statute or regulation, but simply by the Executive’s current enforcement policy is an astounding assertion of federal executive power that the Court rightly rejects.”
From the majority opinion:
“The National Government has significant power to regulate immigration. With power comes responsibility, and the sound exercise of national power over immigration depends on the Nation’s meeting its responsibility to base its laws on a political will informed by searching, thoughtful, rational civic discourse. Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the State may not pursue policies that undermine federal law.”
I may be reading too much into that last quote, but political will through civic discourse is a legislative function.
PD
Thanks for your enlargement of the comments made by Scalia, followed by Alito. It’s just human nature to attempt reading the tea leaves before an answer is rendered. In my own case I look at the orchestration of when these decisions are being given.
Today you have the immigration decision which, IMO, gives something and takes away something from everyone. However, it’s not going to make any noticeable waves. Roberts joined in deciding against 3 parts of the law, while it was a unanimous vote for the 2b part, making it appear fair and without any jurist rough edges associated with it.
Come Thursday’s predicted HC ruling, though, there may be more contentious language in the opinions given, which is why I was bringing up the buffering aspect (like taking an aspirin before getting the pain) of today’s action. For instance, if the HC mandate is overturned, and Roberts is presumed to be writing the majority opinion, I would think the straight forward immigration ruling would offer the court some cover from any flak coming their way decrying politicization of an adverse ruling. Furthermore, if the mandate is overturned, I am really wondering about the lack of a severability clause, and if there are any legal precedents out there saying why the lack of this clause wouldn’t cause the entire policy to be overturned.
Jan
I’ve been reading your recent comments. Could you please promise if you ever feel the need to get re-married you will contact me? 😉
It’s not a come on, it’s just I’ll be ….
Drew,
I’m flattered….
@jan- I am pretty sure the lack of a severability clause has not stopped the court before. IIRC, this has been addressed at Volokh, probably the best right of center legal blog.
Steve