In Arizona case, court doesn’t betray its alleged ideological gap
Oh, that zany, right-wing Supreme Court.
Liberals have been working themselves into a frenzy about the possibility that the court’s four conservative justices and the less-predictable Anthony Kennedy will overturn the 2010 federal health-care reform, a.k.a. Obamacare. Such a ruling figures into two of the “5 Signs of a Radical Change in U.S. Politics,” according to The Atlantic’s James Fallows. “Court packing,” the idea of adding justices to the court which was last threatened by Franklin Roosevelt when the court wouldn’t accept as constitutional some of his New Deal programs, is already being suggested on the opinion pages of the Washington Post.
Other commentators have warned — presumably for the benefit of any justices who might peruse their columns or blogs — that the court risks discrediting itself if it rules in a way that just happens to go against President Barack Obama. Unexplained is exactly how and why this discrediting will occur, given that majorities of the public across partisan lines deem the law’s individual mandate unconstitutional.
So it must have been bewildering for some of these hand-wringers to find Kennedy and the court’s conservative chief justice, John Roberts, joining three of the liberals Monday to overturn much of Arizona’s controversial immigration law. (The fourth liberal, Elena Kagan, had argued the case as U.S. solicitor general and recused herself from it.)
For political junkies, there’s no buzz-kill like a busted narrative.
Oh, some people’s favorable reactions to Monday’s judgment were more muted than they might have been, were there not a potentially disagreeable (to them) ruling waiting to be released Thursday. For both the left and the right, the bigger prize is the Obamacare ruling, with its conceivably far-reaching implications for the federal government’s power over the individual. But the Roberts-Kennedy alliance with the court’s left wing on the Arizona ruling means we’ll see even more partisan contortions of logic than usual should the court strike down all or part of Obamacare.
Not that the Arizona case doesn’t carry its own import, both in practical terms and for the everlasting tug-of-war between federal and state powers and responsibilities.
In Arizona, the court recognized an extremely limited role for states when it comes to immigration policy. The court’s majority deemed even states’ enforcement of federal immigration law to be out of bounds if it could lead to state prosecutions the feds might have forgone. This, the court reasoned, could infringe on the federal government’s “control over enforcement” and the “integrated scheme of regulation” Congress had created. Never mind that Arizona created the law because the feds’ “control over enforcement” has been poor and Congress’ “integrated scheme of regulation” ineffective.
The only contested section of the law not overturned concerns the requirement for police who have arrested someone to check that person’s immigration status if there is reason to believe he might be in the country illegally. The court essentially said state courts must interpret that part of the law — does it apply equally to jaywalkers, who might be detained longer than usual for an immigration-status check, and drunk drivers, who probably wouldn’t? — before it could consider challenges. Which means that part of the law stands to be curtailed, at least, as well.
In one particularly head-scratching element of the ruling, the majority found that states could not impose criminal penalties on illegal immigrants seeking employment because federal law named only civil penalties. “There is no more reason to believe that this rejection was expressive of a desire that there be no [criminal] sanctions on employees,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in a dissent, “than expressive of a desire that such sanctions be left to the States.”
Or as Justice Samuel Alito put it: “With any statutory scheme, Congress chooses to do some things and not others. If that alone were enough to demonstrate preemptive intent, there would be little left over for the States to regulate, especially now that federal authority reaches so far and wide. States would occupy tiny islands in a sea of federal power.”
As it happens, I have my own misgivings about parts of the Arizona law. Having lived and traveled in “show me your papers” countries, I see no place in a free society for police to stop anyone on the street just to ask if he’s legally present. (This differs from a status check of someone arrested for another reason.) And state solutions to illegal immigration are almost always going to be inferior to federal ones.
That said, states bear the brunt of working under ineffective federal immigration policies. It is understandable why Arizona — and Georgia, among others — felt compelled to try something new when Congress will not. And I find it hard to justify barring states from being more diligent enforcers of federal law than the feds have been.
So there are many things to say about the Arizona ruling. That it reflects an immutably ideologically divided group of judges, well, that is not one of them.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
154 comments Add your comment
Don Abernethy
June 25th, 2012
9:26 pm
Is the Supreme Court going liberal like all the rest of the idiots in Washington? What next Obama care??
Hillbilly D
June 25th, 2012
9:28 pm
I’ve never really done the research but I’ve always wondered how many of the decisions that we consider “landmark decisions” over the last century or two, have been decided by one vote.
JDW
June 25th, 2012
9:35 pm
Tiberius….”It is NOT SOP for everybody.”
O’Dear you mean we should let our police harass citizens with no training…sounds like anarchy to me.
I say again, the ruling allows the local police to do just what they could have done anyway.
Michael H. Smith
June 25th, 2012
10:07 pm
Hey comrade socialist libs… “Show me you pap’rs please?!”
Can you hurry up Thursday Kyle?
Yeah… just saying
Dusty
June 25th, 2012
10:19 pm
Hillbilly D, 9:28
I don’t think this present ruling is a “landmark” decision as far as immigration is concerned.
It is a “landmark” decision on the rights of states. It has done an inchworm move forward on immigration which will end up in court again. But it again raises the mighty question of the three divisions of our government as the executive branch tries to be the Imperial Emperor of the country and rule alone.
I hope Americans will realize what is happening before the presidential election comes up. Inspiration in the White House is dead and gone. Even Jimmy Carter knows it!!
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 25th, 2012
10:27 pm
JDW, you really need to pay attention. Police departments cannot access the Federal databases, nor apply Federal criteria to ascertain the immigration status of someone who is detained unless the y have receive specific ICE training and have been certified by ICE. In Georgia, for instance, there are less than a handful of police / sheriff’s departments that have received ICE certification, so to repeat, your contention that police could have done this is false.
More importantly, your childish and lawless President took the ridiculous step of shutting down Arizona’s access to the ICE databases following this ruling today, Yeah, JDW, the “man” who swore an oath to enforce the laws of this nation just completely and totally defied the Supreme Court’s UNANIMOUS ruling allowing Arizona to ascertain the immigration status of someone being detained for a crime.
But I’m sure, as always, that you’ll find a way to defend his ignorance of the law and disregard for it.
Hillbilly D
June 25th, 2012
10:28 pm
Dusty
I went back and did a little research (unscientific) and the only big decision I found that was 5-4 was Miranda v Arizona (better known as the Miranda Decision). I just checked a few and didn’t go in depth.
Brown v Board of Education was 9-0 and Dred Scott v Sandford was 7-2.
Michael H. Smith
June 25th, 2012
10:30 pm
I say again, the ruling allows the local police to do just what they could have done anyway.
Wrong brucie!.
Now they can do it without the same degree fear from a legal challenge for having done it and… AND, it is a hell of alot harder to PROVE a discrimination claim in a court of law than it is for people like you who simply make a public claim of it at every time one of your pet ethnic groupies face the same legal treatment as those you have nothing but disdain for receive anytime we are stopped by law enforcement.
The pendulum is swinging back to the right, Comrades. Your beloved Socialism of the past century is no longer in social vogue.
Oh and Kyle, about that packing of the court… The socialist pee-gressives actually did pack the court without implementing FDR’s grand scheme. When we win in November don’t think for one minute that we on the right will not seat another Roberts, Scalia, Thomas or Alito to have our time at the helm of legal power any differently these the liberal Marxist did for over 100 years.
Cram it down “THEIR” throats!
Karma is a Aqua-girl, brucie!
Dusty
June 25th, 2012
10:35 pm
Tiberious, 10:27
Who made that announcement about closing Arizona’a access to ICE database? The president? Holder? It is so clumsily obvious and politically inspired as being totally incredulous.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 25th, 2012
10:40 pm
Not sure, Dusty, but I suspect it was someone at Homeland Security.
Gov. Jan Brewer was on Greta tonight and confirmed the shut down of the state’s access.
Greta also mentioned that Holder’s Justice Dept. also had a hotline set up this afternoon for people who are detained in Arizona to report any right’s violations.
This administration is filled with so many immature children from the top down, it is no longer funny.
Michael H. Smith
June 25th, 2012
10:41 pm
Hillbilly D
There are more recent one vote big decisions other than Miranda. One of them nearly “over turned” a landmark case, Roe -v- Wade, and that chill wind still blows to this day, as Scalia and Plurality remain just one vote away from a reversal of not so “SETTLED LAW”.
Dusty
June 25th, 2012
10:45 pm
Hillbilly,
I wonder what the standards are to identify a “landmark decision”? The ones you mentioned are certainly well known but what else?
I can’t see how today’s annoucement from the Supreme Court gave anything that made the earth shake or even a quiver. Oh well….next cometh ObamaCare. If not a landmark, most certainly a pain in the neck either way it goes. I don’t want the government serving as my doctor.
Michael H. Smith
June 25th, 2012
10:51 pm
Tiberius
obumer’s blatant violation of his oath of office to uphold the laws and Constitution of this country, as in this case, will prompt another suit from a State against the Federal government leading back to the Supreme Court, forcing obumer to enforce the laws on the books he doesn’t like.
Anyone who truly is loyal to this Republic has to be greatly troubled by obumer’s arbitrary refusal to enforce the laws, which makes him an arrogant tyrant.
Hillbilly D
June 25th, 2012
10:52 pm
I wonder what the standards are to identify a “landmark decision”?
I think like most things in life, it’s in the eye of the beholder.
Dusty
June 25th, 2012
10:55 pm
Tiberius,
We need a hot line to report Holder’s rejection of law and order as established in the USA. The country has about reached the 911 stage.with CPR needed in Washington.
Maybe tomorrow will be better. I hope!! G’nite…
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 25th, 2012
10:56 pm
If the mandate alone is overturned the only significance of that will be the first time the Commerce Clause will have had limits applied to it. Important, yes. But not exactly landmark.
I’m not sure that even having the whole law thrown out would be considered landmark.
A big slap in the face to the administration and to all the lawmakers who alternately claimed that severability was “implied” without being specifically stated, and for people like Pelosi, et al, who claimed the mandate was easily Constitutional.
Wouldn’t it be nice to have a provision Federal in law that required Congresspeople or Senators to resign their office immediately and be barred from re-election if they voted for a law that was ultimately considered un-Constitutional? Ah, I can only dream . . .
Dusty
June 25th, 2012
10:57 pm
Hillbilly D
Good answer! G’nite…
Michael H. Smith
June 25th, 2012
10:59 pm
In the obumercare case there is no doubt about being LANDMARK. It will settle for many years to come whether the Federal government power’s are limited or unlimited, whether we are a Representative Republic or a Fascist Socialist Totalitarian Oligarchy.
ld
June 25th, 2012
10:59 pm
It has long seemed that the GOP has wanted the best of both sides for their investor/employer and that “other” constituency. In eight Bush years with much of that with a Republican-controlled Congress, the GOP showed little actual interest in acting to stop illegal immigration much less deporting them — even after 9/11 — but haven’t want them “legalized” them either, lest they become able to vote for the Democrats. Legalizing illegals would serve to anger the parts of the base the Democrats lost in the south to the GOP after civil rights legislation — don’t even pretend it doesn’t still exist w/strong “feelings”. Legalizing illegals could also serve to enable them to join unions and otherwise widen their opportunities and compete for higher wages — contrary to the bu$ine$$ intere$t$ part of the GOP base.
Mitt Romeny has yet to indicate he will reverse the Obama policy w/regard to not deporting those brought here as minor children and he has yet to put any comprehensive plan on the table. He cannot be concerned about angering the Democrats so, he must be concerned about angering the Republicans.
The new Supreme Court ruling seems to indicate that federal courts want to protect federal power and keep immigration policy a federal decision — including by using broad interpretations to strike down state efforts to identify illegals so they can be turned over to the feds.
The ruling also seems to say that, while it is illegal to cross the border w/o authorization, it seems it is not illegal to BE here.
So, if any president — Obama or Romney — decided to grant a pardon to illegals for the crime of crossing the border to get here, and then if those thus pardoned STAY here and do not leave then again come back, they are pretty much home free as far as deportation is concerned.
Short of laws to encourge self-deportation that the fed courts do not strike down, the states are, as of now, impotent.
Romney’s near silence now on specifics of HIS comprehensive immigration policy/plan may well be a first step in a re-election plan that includes that pardon. If Obama does not beat him to it.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 25th, 2012
10:59 pm
Michael H. Smith, I wish the Supreme Court would re-convene in emergency session and vote to order the Obama administration to reinstate Arizona’s access. After all, it was a unanimous decision upholding that provision.
This President is simply out of control.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 25th, 2012
11:05 pm
“Mitt Romeny has yet to indicate he will reverse the Obama policy w/regard to not deporting those brought here as minor children and he has yet to put any comprehensive plan on the table.”
Sorry he doesn’t use words you can understand, but he said that his comprehensive policy would negate any reversal or continuation of Obama’s edict.
And Romney has announced support for Rubio’s plan in the works, so he has one being offered in the appropriate manner – through the legislative process.
Sorry if he doesn’t cross all your “T”s and dot all your “I”s for you.
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 25th, 2012
11:06 pm
And with that, I’m outta here!
md
June 25th, 2012
11:09 pm
I’d consider the aca case to be “landmark”, if for no other reason to finally decide if the commerce clause will be used for everything the feds care to do. As “commerce” is a basic tenant of our economy, the SC doesn’t stop it here, they will be forever establishing precedent that it won’t be stopped. That joke about broccoli may be just around the corner if hc costs continue to escalate and the feds have to find ways to constrain the costs. What better way to do that than to dictate what is and isn’t the proper foods to purchase and consume in the name of healthcare “for the good of all”
Michael H. Smith
June 25th, 2012
11:11 pm
Tiberius
There comes a point, as I said that loyalty if one has it, means defending the country and constitution supersedes precedents and even Presidents. Either Congress or the Court must act to preserve the Republic… Nixon wasn’t above the law and neither is this little want-to-be tyrant. If we allow a President to pick and chose which laws shall be enforce we cease to be a nation ruled by law, a Republic.
ld
June 25th, 2012
11:13 pm
All power tries to HOLD power.
This court decision has some of that–keep federal power federal and keep federal courts the venue for resolving those disputes.
ANY US administration wants to hold as much power as possible. The seeming petulance of the Obama administration in not helping the state “win” against it is another example. Obama is not “out of control” so much as he is using as much of the control he has as he can to make a partial win more of a win.
ld
June 25th, 2012
11:17 pm
Tiberius: What I hear him say was Romney say is that he would not “need” to because he would immediately have Congress pass a comprehensive plan — that does not say whether that plan will contain this element or not — nor does it “guarantee” anything will pass.
As I recall, Bush DID want comprehensive immigration reform and his own party blocked him more than any Democrat on the issue.
ld
June 25th, 2012
11:19 pm
Getting sleepy, clearly.
Meant to say that what I heard Romeny say was that he would not need to leave in place Obama’s directive because …..
He may find getting Congress to pass something more like herding cats.
ld
June 25th, 2012
11:20 pm
outta here; nite all
hryder
June 26th, 2012
1:30 am
The major problem with this and many of the “judical rulings”, is that the vast majority of the judges as well as most others in the country have not resided in or visited Arizona, New Mexico, or South Texas actually experiencing the problems created by the lack ot the federal enforcement of congressional created laws. The mentioned states areas are not the east or west coasts nor the midwest or south and have a uniquness apart from all other areas that are incomprehensible unless experienced as a full time resident for much more than a few months.
Just Curious
June 26th, 2012
4:53 am
Just what kind of “papers” will individuals have to show, and how many Dixiecrats already have them in their possession? Mark Rubio doesn’t look Latino, so be careful of what you wish.
seabeau
June 26th, 2012
6:08 am
Kyle: As I have said before,The States need to call for a Constitutional Convention, where States Rights could be returned to the status they were given by the Constitution.
@@
June 26th, 2012
6:57 am
As I recall, Bush DID want comprehensive immigration reform and his own party blocked him more than any Democrat on the issue.
John McCain was on Greta last night. Listening to him recall GWB’s efforts on comprehensive immigration reform, it was both parties who opposed it. It makes me wonder if Obama isn’t hurting hisself with this push on immigration. Why would dems oppose GWB’s efforts if not in support of their constituent’s views.
I know plenty of democrats who are opposed to immigration reform.
I was behind a black fella in the grocery store once…he was raising cain about the language selection in the self checkout line…very angry…very loud. Said something about going back to where they belong…that they were stealing what rightfully belonged to the American people.
tiredofIT
June 26th, 2012
7:41 am
” Inspiration in the White House is dead and gone” Romney can’t even inspire his own party.
Tommy Gunn
June 26th, 2012
7:50 am
I am amazed at many things in this column as well as how easy a fix would be to this ” power grab” by the federal government.
First, we ALREADY live in a check your papers state. If you doubt that, ask anyone who traveled south on I75 last weekend between the TN state line and Cartersville between11pm and 1am.
Second, the founding fathers DID envision such a scenario as we are presented with today, and a mechanism to address it. A Constitutionial Convention . We could with fix all that is wrong and re instate states rights. I just wonder would those in power “allow”it to take place!
Tiberius - Banned from Bookman's and proud of it!
June 26th, 2012
8:01 am
“I was behind a black fella in the grocery store once”
Please, @@! That would be “a gentleman of African-American persuasion . . .”
carlosgvv
June 26th, 2012
8:24 am
Tiberius
Please, you MUST ask this individual how he wishes to be addressed before you dare refer to him in any ethnic or racial way.If not, he will have the civil rights police in action quicker than you can say Al Sharpton.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
June 26th, 2012
8:28 am
The presumptive GOP nominee happened to be in Arizona when the Supreme Court struck down three key provisions of the state’s controversial “Papers, please” law and left a fourth hanging by a thread. But when the ruling was announced, Romney issued an intentionally vague statement, then spent the rest of the day ducking reporters, with his spokesman providing no further clarity. He did allow at a fund-raiser last night that “I would have preferred to see the Supreme Court give more latitude to the states, not less,” but the day ended without Romney addressing the specifics of Arizona’s law or the court’s decision.
Romney needs to grow a pair.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
June 26th, 2012
9:05 am
another made it a crime for undocumented migrants to try to get a job in Arizona;
and AZ still has an unemployment rate of 8%. mwuahahahahahaha
td
June 26th, 2012
9:30 am
Finn McCool (The System isn’t Broken; It’s Fixed)
June 26th, 2012
9:05 am
another made it a crime for undocumented migrants to try to get a job in Arizona;
and AZ still has an unemployment rate of 8%. mwuahahahahahaha
The law was never implemented due to the immediate court challenge and injunction placed on the state by a Federal judge.
But hey, do not let the facts get in your way of a dumb political point.
@@
June 26th, 2012
9:33 am
Tiberius:
White fella, Latino fella, Asian fella, an effiminate fella? All fellas to me.
With his “very angry/very loud” behavior, we could argue whether he was a “gentle manly” fella or not.
md
June 26th, 2012
9:55 am
I do wonder how Obama’s base feels about him issuing executive orders to allow up to roughly a million illegals into the work force at a time when jobs are already tough to come by…..especially in an area such as South LA, where the latino community is growing by the day and more than likely has a large percentage of illegals since LA is a sanctuary city:
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/28/business/la-fi-black-unemployment-20120428
md
June 26th, 2012
9:57 am
Oh, and that is Maxines’ district……so it should get interesting……..
TRUTH
June 26th, 2012
10:25 am
The SCOTUS conservatives realized that the WORLD was watching them. Although the overtle con SCOTUS members probably wanted to uphold the AZ law, they realized that their opinions would have been fodder for the upcoming campaign that Mitt still hasn’t decided on how he will flip (or is that flop??!!) on that agenda point. Frankly, watching Jan Brewer come on and claim a shallow victory missed the writings of our dear Mr. Wingfield. Can we all agree that 25% of the original law was left standing while the other 75% was essentially gutted? In short, GOP FAIL. And by the con members of the SCOTUS no less!!
As for the Affordable Healthcare Act ruling that is due sometime this century…the SCOTUS is once again placed squarely under the light. Although the GOP is already running about trying to find a place to spike the ball, I would think after the AZ ruling they may be thinking that they could be left holding the ball. Contrary to many of these selfish idiots ideaology, the American public is FOR the Affordable Healthcare Act (known the the GOP faithful as “OBAMACARE”). It is not that the citizenry is for a hand-out, but for care, both responsive and preventative. Further, the absurdity of the GOP being once for a federal mandate and to suddenly switch course is NOT a result of any political shift within the party, but more a unified effort, much too the GOP’s detriment, to stonewall and attempt to defeat the President. I will not infuse racisim into the argument, because stupidity and outright horsepoo floats to the top whenever the GOP opens its mouth.
The SCOTUS decision regarding AZ may be a telling sign of the GOP’s ultimate plan to grab power, but and even better the will of the American Citizen to see this attempt by the GOP as they have across the country and finally end the charade put on by the GOP as trying to be citizen friendly. (My bad, they are citizen friendly, CORPORATE citizen friendly!!!)
md
June 26th, 2012
10:38 am
“In short, GOP FAIL.”
More like US fail……as the law no longer matters and the rest of the world now knows it……
As for the aca:
“72 percent of Americans believe the individual mandate in the health care reform package is unconstitutional, while 20 percent believe it is constitutional.
Along party lines, a majority of Democrats – 56 percent – believe the health care mandate is unconstitutional and 37 percent defend it as constitutional. Among Republicans, 94 percent view that part of the law as unconstitutional.”
Hardly suggests the “American public” is in favor………….
Jefferson
June 26th, 2012
10:45 am
Cheer up.
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
June 26th, 2012
10:54 am
Just how unpatriotic are conservatives?
regressives have no interest in preserving or protecting our system of government. To the contrary, they show every sign of wanting to be rid of it. In fact, regressives in Congress have substituted partisanship for patriotism, placing party loyalty above loyalty to America. The GOP’s highest-ranking member of Congress has said his “number one aim” is to unseat President Obama. For more than three years congressional Republicans have marched in lockstep, determined to do just that. They have brooked no compromise.
http://www.salon.com/2012/06/26/real_patriotism_salpart/
Let’s get out the vote to ensure Conservatives get kicked to the street where they belong!
DawgDad
June 26th, 2012
11:02 am
Distortion: “. . . the American public is FOR the Affordable Healthcare Act (known the the GOP faithful as “OBAMACARE”). It is not that the citizenry is for a hand-out, but for care, both responsive and preventative. ”
As to the first statement, I’m not sure you have your facts straight. As for your second statement, it’s total puffery. Who’s NOT for “care”, “clean water”, “clean air”, etc.? Who’s to say Obamacare makes care better? From my perspective it’s effects have been the opposite. And, at what cost? Freedom?
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
June 26th, 2012
11:12 am
Sorry, but money does not equal free speech.
md
June 26th, 2012
11:35 am
“In fact, regressives in Congress have substituted partisanship for patriotism, placing party loyalty above loyalty to America. The GOP’s highest-ranking member of Congress has said his “number one aim” is to unseat President Obama.”
All a matter of perspective……….
And Finn……did you get my link showing how bogus your talking point about red states vs blue states really is??
Finn McCool (The System isn't Broken; It's Fixed)
June 26th, 2012
11:54 am
no, didn’t get your link, md. There is nothing bogus about it. The bluer the state, the higher the income levels and the higher the income taxes going to government.
The redder the state, the more its population is in need of government support.