PLANK JUNE 25, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
The Supreme Court on Monday struck down most parts of Arizona’s immigration enforcement law, leaving in place the most controversial element but in a way that suggests it may not last for long.
The Court announced no decision on health care reform, delaying that until a final session to be held on Thursday.
Mike Sacks of the Huffington Post summarized the immigration decision:
Monday’s decision on “papers please” rested on the more technical issue of whether the law unconstitutionally invaded the federal government's exclusive prerogative to set immigration policy. The justices found that it was not clear whether Arizona was supplanting or supporting federal policy by requiring state law enforcement to demand immigration papers from anyone stopped, detained or arrested in the state who officers reasonably suspect is in the country without authorization. The provision that was upheld—at least for now—also commands police to check all arrestees’ immigration status with the federal government before they are released.
The court gave the Obama administration a victory by striking three other challenged provisions as stepping on federal prerogatives. Two of them made it a crime for undocumented immigrants to be present and to seek employment in Arizona, while a third authorized police officers to make warrantless arrests of anyone they had probable cause to believe had committed a deportable offense.
Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said, “The history of the United States is in part made of the stories, talents and lasting contributions of those who crossed oceans and deserts to come here.”
The invocation of personal stories is a signature Kennedy touch. His willingness to side with the government, on an issue involving the boundaries of state and federal power, might also be an encouraging sign for supporters of health care reform. Even though the court has temporarily allowed the “papers please” provision to stand, Kennedy's opinion suggests it will not survive unless the state courts, which must review the statute, construe it incredibly narrowly.
Doug Kendall of the Constitutional Accountability Center called the ruling
a near-complete vindication of the federal government’s authority to establish uniform rules that guide immigration policy in this country. While Justice Kennedy soberly explained why the law prohibited Arizona’s effort to take immigration law into its own hands, Justice Scalia responded with a political diatribe better suited for Fox News than the Supreme Court.”
(TNR.COM will have more authoritative and comprehensive assessment of the decision later.)
The Arizona verdict, which largely affirmed the position of the Obama Administration, is also proof that oral arguments aren't always indicative of outcomes. Solicitor General Don Verilli took a serious beating from the justices in that case, just as he did during the health care arguments.
But critics of health care reform could also see this as a good omen. Kennedy has a habit of giving wins to both ideological sides in any given term, although it's not a hard and fast rule. Monday's decision to strike down the Arizona law was one of two in which he sided with the court's liberals. The other was a decision, written by Justice Elana Kagan, holding that life without parole for minors violated the constitution's prohibition on "cruel and unusual" punishment.
So we really don't know anything more about the health care case than we did an hour ago, except for this: A decision is definitely coming on Thursday.
follow me on twitter @CitizenCohn
6 comments
What a shock - the Court rules the way the US Chamber of Commerce wanted them to rule.
- Lymon1
June 25, 2012 at 11:45am
It could have been worse, but they still left standing the most offensive and obviously unconstitutional part of this fascist legislation. It is obviously intended to supplant and not support Federal policy in the area, of which there isn't any anyway, since the Arizonians never made any bones about the fact that they enacted their law because of dissatisfaction with the Federal government's enforcement efforts. I don't see why referral (or whatever they did) for an authoritative State interpretation was necessary, except to give the Supremes some political cover, which it won't in this case but might be useful as a counterbalance to a balls-to-the-wall upholding of the Affordable Care Act. I hope some timetable was set for seeking a State-level interpretation of the obvious, because a lot of people (like me) have had their lives put on hold because of these offensive and intrusive "papers please" provisions.
- mlottman
June 25, 2012 at 12:17pm
Well, from what I've read there are other suits proceeding against the "papers please" provisions, plus, since the law hasn't gone into effect yet the justices claimed that it is "unclear" if this is unconstitutional or not, although on its face it seems to be offensive and probably racist. Personally that is a real nightmare scenario, being stopped and hounded like that. However won't it be easier to pursue cases against the provision once somebody's rights have been harmed by them? That would reduce the fuzziness considerably! Still, I was somewhat encouraged by this ruling. The way things have been going...
- Sophia
June 25, 2012 at 12:52pm
Read what Kennedy says about the federal government's authority to decide NOT to enforce its own laws and to set enforcement priorities. It sounds like it directly addresses, and approves, what Obama did ten days ago.
- Mikelawyr22
June 25, 2012 at 1:51pm
It's beginning to look likely that the court is going to issue some enormously unpopular ruling at the very last dying minute, then go immediately on vacation. I don't know whether to gain hope from that or not.
- AllanL5
June 25, 2012 at 2:16pm
In re what this means for the constitutionality of the ACA, please please please avoid reading tea leaves that may not mean a thing. And that includes trying to game out what Justice Kennedy's decision in this case might mean for another case, as well as what Justice Ginsburg said two weeks about about dissents and sharp disagreements. I would normally put Justice Scalia's musings in his new book about Wickard v. Filburn in that category as well, but I think it was pretty evident from oral argument that he is going to be against the ACA so this just confirms it. Otherwise, as Justice Ginsburg said earlier, "those who know don't say and those who say don't know."
- wildboy
June 25, 2012 at 2:52pm