25 Jun '12 14:38>1 edit
Still reading the whole thing (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-182b5e1.pdf) but by a 5-3 vote the Court has tossed out the provisions making it a State criminal offense not to meet the registration requirements of federal law and making it a State crime for an unauthorized alien to seek work. Also Section 6 which: Section 6 authorizes officers to arrest without a warrant a person “the officer has probable cause to believe . . . has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.” All are gone based on preemption grounds i.e. regulation of immigration is a Federal, not State, matter.
Section 2(B) provides that officers who conduct a stop, detention, or arrest must in some circumstances make efforts to verify the person’s immigration status with the Federal Government. See §11–1051(B) (West 2012).
This provision seems to have been kicked back to the lower courts on technical grounds; I'll look over that part of the decision and get back.
EDIT: 2(B) has been upheld essentially on the idea that it is too early to say whether it will be applied in an unconstitutional manner. At p. 24:
There is a basic uncertainty about what the law means and how it will be enforced. At this stage, without the benefit of a definitive interpretation from the state courts, it would be inappropriate to assume §2(B) will be construed in a waythat creates a conflict with federal law. Cf. Fox v. Washington, 236 U. S. 273, 277 (1915) (“So far as statutes fairly may be construed in such a way as to avoid doubtful constitutional questions they should be so construed; and it is to be presumed that state laws will be construed in that way by the state courts” (citation omitted)). As a result, the United States cannot prevail in its current challenge. See Huron Portland Cement Co. v. Detroit, 362 U. S. 440, 446 (1960) (“To hold otherwise would be to ignore theteaching of this Court’s decisions which enjoin seeking outconflicts between state and federal regulation where none clearly exists&rdquo😉. This opinion does not foreclose other preemption and constitutional challenges to the law asinterpreted and applied after it goes into effect
Big loss for the right wingers and Kennedy and Roberts joined the majority (with Kagan not participating).
Section 2(B) provides that officers who conduct a stop, detention, or arrest must in some circumstances make efforts to verify the person’s immigration status with the Federal Government. See §11–1051(B) (West 2012).
This provision seems to have been kicked back to the lower courts on technical grounds; I'll look over that part of the decision and get back.
EDIT: 2(B) has been upheld essentially on the idea that it is too early to say whether it will be applied in an unconstitutional manner. At p. 24:
There is a basic uncertainty about what the law means and how it will be enforced. At this stage, without the benefit of a definitive interpretation from the state courts, it would be inappropriate to assume §2(B) will be construed in a waythat creates a conflict with federal law. Cf. Fox v. Washington, 236 U. S. 273, 277 (1915) (“So far as statutes fairly may be construed in such a way as to avoid doubtful constitutional questions they should be so construed; and it is to be presumed that state laws will be construed in that way by the state courts” (citation omitted)). As a result, the United States cannot prevail in its current challenge. See Huron Portland Cement Co. v. Detroit, 362 U. S. 440, 446 (1960) (“To hold otherwise would be to ignore theteaching of this Court’s decisions which enjoin seeking outconflicts between state and federal regulation where none clearly exists&rdquo😉. This opinion does not foreclose other preemption and constitutional challenges to the law asinterpreted and applied after it goes into effect
Big loss for the right wingers and Kennedy and Roberts joined the majority (with Kagan not participating).