Analysis: Five things we learned from Supreme Court's immigration ruling
June 26th, 2012
08:01 AM ET

Analysis: Five things we learned from Supreme Court's immigration ruling

by Mallory Simon and Bill Mears, CNN

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.

Read the full post on CNN's This Just In Blog

Posted by
Filed under: History • Immigration • Where we live
soundoff (No Responses)

Comments are closed.