"Arizona has moved to protect its sovereignty—not in contradiction of federal law, but in complete compliance with it." - Scalia

The court reminds the states that they may have "understandable frustrations" with illegal immigration but they "may not pursue policies that undermine federal law."

Yes, you're right, although stays in place for now. RT @jakewalker: @AlisonFrankel not really “upheld” so much as not dealt with yet, no?

Scalia clearly thinks this is a victory for the Obama administration. Let's see what other justices are saying about the majority ruling

RT @LKrauskopf: Looks like Thursday is when Supreme Court likely to rule on healthcare law. #hcr

RT @ReutersLegal: Supreme Court says Thursday last day of term, #healthcare ruling expected then. #SCOTUS

So #healthcare dress rehearsal is done for the day. But some very important opinions were released. Exciting they got so much attention!

William A. Jacobson is Associate Clinical Professor of Law and Director of the Securities Law Clinic at Cornell Law School. Posted to the blog “Legal Insurrection”
“But the Court upheld, for now, the provision requiring a check of immigration status for persons otherwise detained. The Court left open the possibility of additional legal challenges after the law goes into effect. So expect more litigation.”
“The net-net? The federal government did better than many expected, particularly on section 6. I don’t think many people thought state criminal sanctions and other state requirements would survive.”
“Section 2(B) remains in effect for now, which politically is a lot more palatable, because the immigration status check only takes place after a lawful detention.”

Hahaha, so true! RT @tlbaynes: RT @prwerdel: REVEALED: Twitter a terrible tool for dissecting complicated legal rulings.

Kennedy's opening line in Part II of the opinion strikes me as basically what this is all about: "The Government of the United States has broad, undouted power over the subject of immigration and the status of aliens....The federal power to determine immigration policy is well settled...It is fundamental that foreign countries concerned about the status, safety and security of their nationals" be able to deal with "one national sovereign."..

These are not the words of a court that thinks its striking out in some new direction.

More expert thoughts: William A. Jacobson is Associate Clinical Professor of Law and Director of the Securities Law Clinic at Cornell Law School. Posted to the blog “Legal Insurrection”
“But the Court upheld, for now, the provision requiring a check of immigration status for persons otherwise detained. The Court left open the possibility of additional legal challenges after the law goes into effect. So expect more litigation.”
“The net-net? The federal government did better than many expected, particularly on section 6. I don’t think many people thought state criminal sanctions and other state requirements would survive.”
“Section 2(B) remains in effect for now, which politically is a lot more palatable, because the immigration status check only takes place after a lawful detention.”

From Jan Brewer’s website:

“Today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court is a victory for the rule of law. It is also a victory for the
10th Amendment and all Americans who believe in the inherent right and responsibility of states to defend their citizens. After more than two years of legal challenges, the heart of SB 1070 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. I know the State of Arizona and its law enforcement officers are up to the task. The case for SB 1070 has always been about our support for the rule of law. That means every
law, including those against both illegal immigration and racial profiling. Law enforcement will be held accountable should this statute be misused in a fashion that violates an individual’s civil rights.

“The last two years have been spent in preparation for this ruling. Upon signing SB 1070 in 2010, I issued an Executive Order directing the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board (AZ POST) to develop and provide training to ensure our officers are prepared to enforce this law efficiently, effectively and in a manner consistent with the Constitution. In recent days, in anticipation of this decision, I issued a new Executive Order asking that this training be made available once again to all of Arizona’s law enforcement officers. I am confident our officers are prepared to carry out this law responsibly and lawfully. Nothing less is acceptable.

“Of course, today’s ruling does not mark the end of our journey. It can be expected that legal challenges to SB 1070 and the State of Arizona will continue. Our critics are already preparing new litigation tactics in response to their loss at the Supreme Court, and undoubtedly will allege inequities in the implementation of the law. As I said two years ago on the day I signed SB 1070 into law, ‘We cannot give them that chance. We must use this new tool wisely, and fight for our safety with the honor Arizona deserves.’”

We're waiting to see who declares "victory" and who doesn't on the immigration case. With these apparently "split decisions," it becomes possible for a party who actually is the loser to claim a victory. But if Scalia's tone in his concur/dissent is any indication, this is a defeat for his "side" of the argument.

Win over America's married moms, win the White House bloom.bg

The New York Times’ website currently proclaims, “Justices Uphold Key Part of Arizona Law,” while The Washington Post has taken the opposite perspective: “Court rejects parts of Ariz. Immigration law.”

Azcentral.com, which hosts the Arizona Republic’s website, has a compromise between the Times and the Post: “Supreme Court rejects 3 of 4 SB 1070 provisions; key part upheld.”

Section 2(B) was the key provision in S.B. 1070, and it was upheld. The ruling lends more support to the fact that states have a role to play when it comes to deterring illegal immigration. While the decision was not a complete win for Arizona, Section 2(B) will have a significant impact in that it will allow local law enforcement to serve as a force-multiplier for immigration law enforcement.

More from the Center for Immigration Studies: "States will likely follow Arizona’s lead and craft similar legislation designed to discourage illegal immigration. The Supreme Court has given the green light Section 2(B), just as it did with E-Verify last year. Today, 15 states have some form of an E-Verify mandate and many other states are considering legislation.

So neither side is going to be completely satisfied by this ruling. As is typical, we'll have to await further decisions by the court elaboarating on more specific factual situations.