Supreme Court rejects Arizona Immigration law

Court mostly rejects Arizona immigration law

By Tom Cohen and Bill Mears, CNN

updated 12:38 PM EDT, Mon June 25, 2012

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• NEW: Arizona's governor says the heart of the law remains intact
• The ruling leaves open the possibility of future legal challenges
• Three other key parts opposed by the federal government get struck down
• Justices differ on the power of the federal government versus the states

Washington (CNN) -- The U.S. Supreme Court struck down key parts of an Arizona law Monday that sought to deter illegal immigration, but it let stand a controversial provision that lets police check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.

In a decision sure to ripple across the political landscape in a presidential election year, the court's 5-3 ruling upheld the authority of the federal government to set immigration policy and laws.

"The national government has significant power to regulate immigration," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion. "Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the state may not pursue policies that undermined federal law."

The Supreme Court concluded that the federal government had the power to block the law -- known as SB1070. Yet the court let stand one of the most controversial parts of the bill -- a provision that lets police check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws if "reasonable suspicion" exists that the person is in the United States illegally.

"There is a basic uncertainty about what the law means and how it will be enforced," Kennedy wrote. "At this stage, without the benefit of a definitive interpretation from state courts, it would be inappropriate to assume (the provision) will be construed in a way that creates a conflict with federal law."

Kennedy made clear that Arizona authorities had to enforce the immigration status checks in compliance with federal law or face certain constitutional challenges.

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer on immigration ruling: We won

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer declared the ruling a victory for her state, saying the "heart" of the law can now be implemented "in accordance with the U.S. Constitution."

"While we are grateful for this legal victory, today is an opportunity to reflect on our journey and focus upon the true task ahead: the implementation and enforcement of this law in an even-handed manner that lives up to our highest ideals as American citizens," Brewer said in a statement. "Law enforcement will be held accountable should this statute be misused in a fashion that violates an individual's civil rights."

An official in President Barack Obama's administration, speaking on condition of not being identified, said the ruling upholds federal authority on immigration.

"It strikes down most provisions, recognizes the federal government's supremacy in immigration law and enforcement, and narrows the reading of section 2, basically saying that state and local law enforcement cannot do any more than they already are allowed to do under federal statute in regards to requesting immigration status verification from the federal government," the official said.

The hot-button immigration issue has become a major attack line in this year's presidential campaign, with Republicans, led by their certain presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, accusing Obama of failing to devise a comprehensive strategy to deal with illegal immigration.

Texas Rep. Lamar Smith, the Republican chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said Monday's ruling "essentially puts an end to immigration enforcement since the states no longer can step in and fill the void created by the Obama administration."

The federal government challenged four provisions of the Arizona law that never were enforced, pending the legal ruling.

Provisions struck down included:

-- Authorizing police to arrest immigrants without warrant where "probable cause" exists that they committed any public offense making them removable from the country.

-- Making it a state crime for "unauthorized immigrants" to fail to carry registration papers and other government identification.

-- Forbidding those not authorized for employment in the United States to apply, solicit or perform work. That would include immigrants standing in a parking lot who "gesture or nod" their willingness to be employed.

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the minority, argued the court's ruling encroached on Arizona's sovereign powers.

"If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign state," Scalia wrote in a dissent backed by Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas.

The majority included Kennedy, Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Steven Breyer, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

Justice Elena Kagan did not hear the case. Before taking the bench last year, she had been involved in the administration's initial legal opposition to the law as solicitor general.

The Obama administration had argued immigration matters were strictly a federal function.

The ruling is likely to have widespread implications for other states that have or are considering similar laws.

Read the Supreme Court ruling

Fed up with illegal immigrants crossing from Mexico -- and what they say is the federal government's inability to stop it -- legislators in Arizona passed a tough immigration law. The federal government sued, saying that Arizona overreached.

At issue was whether states have any authority to step in to regulate immigration matters or whether that is the exclusive role of the federal government. In dry legal terms, this constitutional issue is known as pre-emption.

During an April hearing, Paul Clement, lawyer for Arizona, told the high court the federal government has long failed to control the problem, and that states have discretion to assist in enforcing immigration laws.

But the Obama administration's solicitor general, Donald Verrilli, strongly countered that assertion, saying immigration matters are under the federal government's exclusive authority and state "interference" would only make matters worse.

Several other states followed Arizona's lead by passing laws meant to deter illegal immigrants. Similar laws are under challenge in lower courts in Georgia, Alabama, Utah, Indiana and South Carolina. Arizona's appeal is the first to reach the Supreme Court.

Lens on immigration: Adolescence deported

Arizona is the nation's most heavily traveled corridor for illegal immigration and smuggling.

Federal courts had blocked four elements of the state's Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, known as SB 1070.

During the 70-minute arguments in April, Roberts raised concerns.

When enforcing other law, "the person is already stopped for some other reason. He's stopped for going 60 in a 20 (mph zone). He's stopped for drunk driving. So that decision to stop the individual has nothing to do with immigration law at all. All that has to do with immigration law is whether or not they can ask the federal government to find out if this person is illegal or not, and then leave it up to you," Roberts said to Verrilli. "It seems to me that the federal government just doesn't want to know who is here illegally or not."

Kennedy echoed the thought, suggesting the federal government is not doing enough on illegal immigration, which might give states discretion to intervene.

Verrilli argued the law would hurt Washington's ability to carry out diplomatic relations with other nations.

The Justice Department said Arizona's population of 2 million Latinos includes an estimated 400,000 there illegally, and 60% to 70% of deportations or "removals" involve Mexican nationals.

The Pew Hispanic Center recently issued a report that found that Mexican immigration to the United States has come to a standstill.

The economic downturn in the United States and better conditions in Mexico, along with deportations and other enforcement, has led many to return to Mexico.

However, the debate continues as more than 10 million unauthorized immigrants -- from Mexico and other countries -- continue to live in the United States.

Even if immigration has slowed to lows not seen in decades, proponents of tough immigration laws want to beef up enforcement ahead of any future pressures.