Supreme Court Decisions
Live coverage of the decisions released by the Supreme Court of the United States
-
Section 2(B) is the critical one..Requires state officers to make a "reasonable attempt...to determine the immigraiton status" of anyone they stop for other reasons. The court majority says sthat "at this stage, without benefit of a definitive interpretation from the state courts, it would be inappropriate" to assume that seciton creates a conflict with federal law. -

-

-
The court is making it clear that such a stop could be handled in an unconstitutional matnner. Therefore there intrinsically wrong with it from a constitutional or preemption standpoint. But they note that when it actually gets cases about how the law is being implemented, they might rule differently. -

-
Tom Goldstein at Scotusblog says Arizona decision is "significant win" for Obama administration, despite "show your papers" being upheldby AlisonFrankel via twitter 6/25/2012 2:34:45 PM -
We will be updated with full stories on today's #SCOTUS decisions throughout the day.by ReutersLegal via twitter 6/25/2012 2:35:41 PM -
Here's the Reuters alert at this moment: • U.S. SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS KEY PART OF TOUGH ARIZONA IMMIGRATION LAW, IN DEFEAT FOR OBAMA
• COURT SAYS OTHER CHALLENGED PROVISIONS OF ARIZONA LAW ARE PREEMPTED BY FEDERAL LAW
• JUSTICE KENNEDY SAYS COURT FINDS UNPERSUASIVE THE ARGUMENT THAT KEY PROVISION OF LAW ON POLICE CHECKS MUST BE PREEMPTED AT THIS STAGE -
Yes, you're right, although stays in place for now. RT @jakewalker: @AlisonFrankel not really “upheld” so much as not dealt with yet, no?by AlisonFrankel via twitter 6/25/2012 2:37:00 PM -
Looks like Thursday is when Supreme Court likely to rule on healthcare law. #hcrby LKrauskopf via twitter 6/25/2012 2:39:07 PM -

-
Scalia concurring on 2 b but dissenting otherwise: "Arizona has moved to protect its sovereignty--not on contradiction of federal law, but in complete compliance with it. The laws under challenge here do not extend or revise federal immigration restrictions, but merely enforce those restrictions more effectively. If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign state. I dissent." -

-

-
RT @LKrauskopf: Looks like Thursday is when Supreme Court likely to rule on healthcare law. #hcrby mygershberg via twitter 6/25/2012 2:43:22 PM -

-
RT @ReutersLegal: Supreme Court says Thursday last day of term, #healthcare ruling expected then. #SCOTUSby AlisonFrankel via twitter 6/25/2012 2:43:59 PM -
RT @deepakguptalaw: I do not think it a good sign that First Am. Fin'l v. Edwards will be decided the same day as healthcare.by AlisonFrankel via twitter 6/25/2012 2:44:51 PM -
So #healthcare dress rehearsal is done for the day. But some very important opinions were released. Exciting they got so much attention!by eringeigersmith via twitter 6/25/2012 2:45:04 PM -

-
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.” -
So it looks like health care on Thursday. But this immigraiton ruling should not be underestimated. There was all kinds of speculation that the court was going to go off in some wild states rights binge on a power that the constitution so explicitly puts in the hands of the U.S. government...And they definitely did not. The ruling looks pretty conventional to me..so far. -
Hahaha, so true! RT @tlbaynes: RT @prwerdel: REVEALED: Twitter a terrible tool for dissecting complicated legal rulings.by AlisonFrankel via twitter 6/25/2012 2:52:02 PM -
RT @SCOTUSOpinions: Arizona v. United States. tinyurl.comby AlisonFrankel via twitter 6/25/2012 2:52:07 PM -
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.".. -
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer issues statement on SCOTUS decision over immigration law - www.scribd.com -

-
While we wait for Thursday, you can dig into the the court's full session using the following interactive. Check it out.
Interactive: The U.S. Supreme Court 2011-2012 Term
From health-care overhaul to indecency standards, the court will tackle more than seventy cases during its nine month term. This interactive graphic provides summaries of each issue, a look at the lawyers, firms and agencies behind every fight, plus links to important legal briefs and headlines.
Follow us on Twitter @ReutersLegal | Like us on Facebook -
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.’” -
Reminder: Aside from healthcare, the justices still have 4 other cases to rule on.
First American Financial Corp. v. Edwards
At Issue: Can a homebuyer sue a bank and title company if a kickback was paid to close a mortgage loan - and the homebuyer suffered no actual harm?
U.S. v. Alvarez
At issue: Whether the Stolen Valor Act, which makes it illegal to falsely represent oneself as a recipient of a medal by the Armed Forces, violates free speech.
Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum (linked with Mohamad v. Rajoub)
At issue: Whether corporations can be held liable in the United States for human rights violations under the Alien Tort Statute, which allows foreigners to sue for conduct outside the U.S.
Magner v. Gallagher
At issue: Can plaintiffs sue under the Fair Housing Act claiming they suffered discrimination on a “disparate impact” basis? -
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. -
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, an outspoken supporter of the anti-immigration law, said one part of the ruling should bolster law enforcement efforts.
“It’s important to show that law enforcement can still question the immigration status of a person they stop,” Arpaio told Reuters in a brief interview. “We have to have that.”
Arpaio said his deputies are prepared for any demonstrations that may arise from the high court’s action.
“If there are any civil disobedience or violations of the law we’re going to take action,” he said. “Who knows what these activists are going to do.”
-

-
Jose Antonio Vargas, reporter who admitted to being an undocumented immigrant in NYT Magazine piece, on Twitter:
“Takeaway from #SCOTUS ruling on #SB1070: We need the fed gov’t--Congress!—to pass comprehensive immigration reform”
“Big question re: SCOTUS ruling: would a cop stop and check the immigration status of someone who doesn’t look Latino?” -

-
McCain and Kyl claiming at least partial victory: Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Jon Kyl (R-AZ) today released the following statement on the Supreme Court’s decision announced today on Arizona’s immigration law, S.B. 1070:
“While we still want to fully review the Supreme Court’s decision, today’s ruling appears to validate a key component of Arizona’s immigration law, SB 1070. The Arizona law was born out of the state’s frustration with the burdens that illegal immigration and continued drug smuggling impose on its schools, hospitals, criminal justice system and fragile desert environment, and an Administration that chooses to set enforcement policies based on a political agenda, not the laws as written by Congress. We will continue our efforts on behalf of the citizens of Arizona to secure our southern border. We believe Arizonans are better served when state and federal officials work as partners to protect our citizens rather than as litigants in a courtroom.” -

-

-

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. -
Arizona Democratic Party Executive Director Luis Heredia:
"The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled section 2B of SB 1070 to be constitutional. That does not make it just or moral. Other parts were ruled unconstitutional as further evidence why this law is flawed. The Arizona Democratic Party opposed SB 1070 in 2010. The Arizona Democratic Party opposes SB 1070 now. This law does nothing to protect or strengthen Arizona.
"This law is simply a tool of divisive voices for political gain, one that damages our state's credibility and economy... SB 1070 has failed Arizona."
"Today’s decision is a call to action. It reminds us of the rash and irresponsible overreach of the Republican Legislature. It also signals that now is the time to elect leaders who will get our state back on track. Arizona families deserve better politicians who respect law enforcement, work to create jobs and enact laws that will protect the individual rights of all citizens.
The Supreme Court has said section 2B of SB 1070 is constitutional. That does not make it right." -

Syria rebels call for reinforcements as war spreads abroad
BEIRUT - Rebels fighting for control of the Syrian town of Qusair called for reinforcements on Wednesday to repel forces loyal to President Bashar al-Assad in a civil war which is spreading violence through an already volatile region.
- Militants release seven Egyptians kidnapped in Sinai
|
- Analysis: From opera to exercises, U.S. and China deepen military ties
- Witness undermines case against Russian protest leader
- Mugabe signs Zimbabwe constitution, paving way for vote
- Egypt court sentences four men to hang for killing priest
- Stockholm riots challenge image of happy, generous state
|
- Zuma implicated in South Africa wedding plane scandal

