Skip to main content

That's the way SCOTUSBlog and many media outlets interpreted today's Supreme Court decision about Arizona's "papers please" law:

"The Court's decision on the 'show your papers' provision strongly suggests it will have to be read narrowly to survive... On net, the #SB1070 decision is a significant win for the Obama Administration. It got almost everything it wanted." New Times
The headline for the San Francisco Chronicle reads, "Analysis: Conservative divisions give Obama big win in Arizona immigration case"; the Houston Chronicle says, "Obama can claim victory in Arizona ruling"; ABC News is reporting, "US Supreme Court strikes down most of SB 1070." And on and on.

While some conservative sites are cheering the "split decision" which "upheld a key provision" of the law, and dunderhead Governor Brewer is claiming "victory" (!?), even their "win" is narrowly defined and tentative, and will likely be challenged as soon as Sheriff Arpaio screws up again. On the Ed Schultz radio program this morning, John Nichols said the ruling "invites" further challenges (civil cases alleging racial profiling are already pending).

In effect, the Court upheld three of the four enjoinders that a lower court applied to SB 1070 almost immediately after Jan Brewer signed the bill in the spring of 2010. The three provisions of SB 1070 that the Court struck down as unconstitutional are: 1) a state law that makes it a crime to be in the country illegally. The Court held this provision is preempted by federal law and cannot be enforced. 2) a ban on undocumented people working in Arizona. Again, since this is already a federal crime, states cannot impose additional penalties. 3) warrantless arrests of people believed to have committed a deportable crime. Once again, this is federal territory and the states cannot enact their own citizenship laws. None of these provisions was thrown out because of racial profiling -- the argument critics have used against SB 1070 all along. All were tossed because they interfere with federal law. In other words, butt out Arizona: immigration is federal policy. Slap!

The only part of SB 1070 that survived, the actual "papers please" provision of the "papers please" law, says it is not only legal, but mandatory, for police officers to request citizenship papers from anyone they stop, if there is "reasonable suspicion" they're here illegally. For my part, that's always been the smelliest section of SB 1070, but according to the ruling, which you can read here, even this didn't survive unequivocally and permanently, because the Court left open the possibility that the "papers please" provision could be revisited later if it's applied in a discriminatory manner. With Joe Arpaio enforcing the law, how could that ever happen?

The 5-3 decision was written by Justice Kennedy, who was joined by Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Chief Justice Roberts. No surprise: Scalia, Thomas, and Alito dissented, and evidently this morning Scalia read parts of his scathing dissent from the bench. Oh, boo hoo.

Originally posted to Maggie's Farm on Mon Jun 25, 2012 at 08:36 AM PDT.

Also republished by Baja Arizona Kossacks and LatinoKos.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site