Supreme Court Arizona Immigration Ruling: Justices Clear Key Part

Josh Gerstein, Politico, June 25, 2012

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a constitutional challenge to a central provision of Arizona’s anti-illegal immigration law, clearing the path for similar legislation to take effect in other states and potentially angering Latinos in a way that could give President Barack Obama an added boost from Hispanic voters in November.

That provision, requiring police to conduct immigration checks on individuals they arrest or merely stop for questioning whom they suspect are in the U.S. illegally, does not appear to violate the Constitution by intruding on the federal government’s powers to control immigration, the court said.

All eight justices who ruled on the case voted to allow the mandatory immigration-check requirement to go into effect. They split on three other disputed provisions of the law, with a majority of the justices ruling that each of those parts of the law could not be enforced because they intruded improperly into a policy sphere reserved to the federal government. Justice Elena Kagan did not participate in the ruling.

The justices said further legal challenges to the mandatory immigration check provision can go forward after that part of the law takes effect.

The ruling Monday is far from a definitive verdict on the Arizona law known as SB 1070, since the case that the court decided did not address the most contentious charge about the legislation: that it will lead to racial profiling of Latinos.


Gov. Jan Brewer (R-Ariz.), who championed the law and rode a wave of political popularity off of its passage, hailed the court’s ruling allowing the enforcement of what she called “the heart” of the immigration crackdown measure.

“Today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court is a victory for the rule of law,” Brewer said in a statement. “After more than two years of legal challenges, the heart of SB 1070 can now be implemented in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.”

Chief Justice Roberts joined with Kennedy and the court’s liberals to strike, 5-3, two other provisions of the Arizona law: a section making it a crime to apply for or hold a job in Arizona without legal work authority and another section allowing a police officer to arrest someone if the officer believes that he has committed a crime that could cause him to be deported, no matter where the crime took place.


In dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia said the court had run roughshod over Arizona’s right to enforce order within its own borders.

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

The Supreme Court’s ruling comes just over a week after Obama announced a major change in immigration policy, pledging not to deport most young people who came to the U.S. illegally as children. {snip}

Scalia directly invoked Obama’s recent move, saying Arizona should not have to step back to allow the president leeway to not enforce immigration law.

“The president said at a news conference that the new program is ‘the right thing to do’ in light of Congress’s failure to pass” immigration reform legislation, Scalia said in a portion of his dissent he summarized from the bench. “Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of the Immigration Act that the president declines to enforce boggles the mind.”


However, presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney issued a statement Monday faulting Obama for failing to push for a federal immigration reform bill.

“Today’s decision underscores the need for a President who will lead on this critical issue and work in a bipartisan fashion to pursue a national immigration strategy. President Obama has failed to provide any leadership on immigration. This represents yet another broken promise by this President,” Romney said, noting that Obama pledged during the 2008 campaign to put forward an immigration initiative during his first year in office.

Romney has refused to take a clear position on the controversial Arizona law or its provisions. However, he opposed the federal effort to block Arizona’s law—a position he articulated again Monday.

“I believe that each state has the duty—and the right—to secure our borders and preserve the rule of law, particularly when the federal government has failed to meet its responsibilities,” Romney said.


The part of Monday’s ruling that prevented Arizona from making it a crime for foreigners to be in the state without valid immigration papers appears to preclude local police from stopping people solely because they are suspected of being in the country illegally. However, Kennedy said explicitly that the court was leaving for another day whether concerns about immigration status could justify prolonging the detention of individuals stopped for other reasons.


Topics: , , , ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • mobilebay

    I would like the Supreme Court to now rule on the meaning of “ILLEGAL.” Washington thinks it means, “Ya’ll come!”

  • Anthony Kennedy wrote a New York Times op-ed disguised as a Supreme Court ruling.  John Roberts was insane to sign on to this.

    But the ruling today on Miller vs Alabama, the one about under 18 year olds and life sentences for murders, is actually more profoundly dangerous.  I read Kagan’s majority opinion, and I came away thinking that this very same rationale will be used in the near future by this same Supreme Court (5-4 for Miller) to eviscerate any semblance of criminal justice enforced on suspects under 18, and black Americans, and it could also be used not only to eliminate the death penalty, but also to invalidate life without parole sentences for anyone.

    My decidedly non-professional opinions:

    • Black kids develop much quicker than white/asian kids. They are also far more violent and rape-happy. I’ve read stories of 14 year old black kids robing and raping elderly women. I didn’t even have clear understanding of sex when I was 14, I couldn’t process the concept of forcing it on a helpless woman. This ruling is disturbing given the current “youth” mob problem.

      •  The great neurological researcher Elena Kagan babbled on and on about brain development in her opinion.  Most 14-year old blacks are more “grown up” both physically and mentally relative to blacks than 14-year old whites are relative to whites.  The problem with five members of the current Supreme Court is that they think of “14-year old” and see visions of their children as relatively immature eighth graders.

  • “Arizona has moved to protect its sovereignty—not in contradiction of
    federal law, but in complete compliance with it,” Scalia wrote. “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 could not have said it better myself!  How is this guy on the Supreme Court?  Are we sure he is an American?

    • There is no such thing as just an “American.” You must have something in front of it, like “African-American,” “Mexican-American” or “Indian-American.” The only exception is putting the words “White” or “European” in front of the word American, because that’s racist.

  • geraldmartin

    Unlike the article’s title, we shouldn’t mince words: this is an unmitigated, massive, and probably final defeat for any legally grounded effort to fight illegal immigration. What a terrible ten days it has been for our side: Obama’s seizure of immigration policy away from Congress with his DREAM diktat; Romney’s complete betrayal of the Republican base by converting to the Marco Rubio position on immigration (though it’s more likely his own true position all along); and today’s Supreme Court decision, which basically destroys Arizona’s 1070 law, the last serious attempt to actually combat illegal immigration, imperfect and limited as it was.

    This ends meaningful debate on the illegal immigration invasion in mainstream national discourse.  The federal government will not seriously try to stop it, will crush any state which does, and such policy is now sanctioned by the highest court in the land. In some conservative congressional districts, “conservative” candidates will continue to bloviate and throw sand in the eyes of the electorate, but the policy question has been decided and isn’t going to change – no matter who wins in November – in the decaying polity we call the United States.

    The alternative right blogosphere will continue to talk about illegals, I suppose, but we should focus our efforts on using the issue as a recruiting tool, as we build towards a critical mass of racially aware whites who are not mindlessly wedded to dead institutions like the U.S. constitution and a fictitious republic (since 1865). 

    For make no mistake: today we lost the last chance of affecting policy in the United States of America as presently constituted.

    • The__Bobster

      Like Father, Like Son—Betraying The GOP Base Is A Romney Family Tradition
      By Matthew Richer on June 25, 2012 at 12:40am

      Patriotic immigration reformers remain dumbfounded over Mitt Romney’s refusal to condemn President Obama’s Executive Amnesty, especially after all of his tough enforcement talk during the primaries. But this betrayal of the GOP base should have surprised no one; the Romneys have been doing it for decades.

      Peter Brimelow has written that most individuals are incapable of engaging new ideas after the age of 21. In a similar manner, the individual members of America’s political families seem largely incapable of engaging any ideas that are distinct from those of the larger clan.

      Think about it: How different is the post-American worldview of George W. or Jeb Bush from that of their internationalist father? Is Senator Jay Rockefeller (NumbersUSA D+) very different from his globalist uncles Nelson and David? Can you imagine any member of the Kennedy clan calling for an immigration moratorium?

      •  Romney over Obama is “necessary, but not sufficient.” We need a TON more TEA party patriots in the US House of Representatives and, hopefully, the US Senate.

        Obama will veto any reasonable measure to stop illegals. Romeny may not push for it, but he won’t fight against us the way Obama would.

        • jeffaral

          Tea Party???!!   You’re kidding….

          •  At least the Tea Party has a platform that focuses on the issues of white self-interest. I view the non-TeoCon wing that hasn’t been taken over by the Koch bros and their affiliates as viable progression towards a truly conservative and nationalist republican party.

          • geraldmartin

            Individual tea-partiers have much potential as recruits, but their organizations are dedicated to the idea that less government & lower taxes in a color-blind society will solve our problems.

            Thing is, the first two are not achievable without a bloody race war first, and the third is a chimera.

             Our task is to teach them that.

        • Kurt Plummer

          Right now, as much as 90% of the legislation passing through Congress is not debated nor floor voted (where the chance of shaming is high).  _At All_.

          ‘Unanimous Consent’

          As they head out of town, just like the way The Fed was covertly instigated in 1913.

          If we are at a point where there is more workload than humans can handle, then it’s time we talk honestly about automation and/or simplifying legislation.

          If not.  Then it’s high time that a lot of people in Washington went to the wall, caskets waiting.  Because someone else is pulling the strings and EVERYONE in Congress knows who it is and for whose benefit.

          Now, with all that riding on the line, do you -really- think a Tea Party electee is going to change things?

          Just by changing a name and adding a party?

      • Kurt Plummer

        The Bobster,

        Think about it: How different is the post-American worldview of George W. or Jeb Bush from that of their internationalist father? Is Senator Jay Rockefeller (NumbersUSA D+) very different from his globalist uncles Nelson and David? Can you imagine any member of the Kennedy clan calling for an immigration moratorium?

        What bothers me is that ‘globalization’ doesn’t look any different in terms of dividing up the planet for exploitation than it did in 1934 when Hitler started trying to decide what belonged to the English and what would be given the Japanese and how much of the Western Hemisphere the U.S. would control.

        In this, the notion strikes me that, in a world with unlimited resources dedicated to supporting a 12-14 billion population count, 90% of them sub-90 IQ’d, by 2100; there has to be something -so awful- about what is going to happen to the last bastions of resources in places like Africa and SWA, that it’s literally only possible to  gain control over these nation’s resources by offering a free ride in places like the USA.

        Otherwise, why bother treating with these people at all?  Why not just take in trade for trinkets as has always been done?  Why not wait for their massive birth rates to be met with massive dieoffs?

        There is _no reason_ not to fix the third world where it is rather than ruin the first (temperate climes, low populations, already standing infrastructure) if you are white and wish to continue to live as whites do best.

        And yet there has to be for an elite group (‘citizens of the world’) living without borders is an elite group living without the buffer of co-ethnic population protection in case the dominant Chinese/Indian/African pops all decide they can do without whites altogether.  In the economic sphere.  Or any other.

  • “The effect of Ariz. immigration law ruling on the Latino community.”
    I am waiting for the MSNBC story on the effect of the immigration law ruling on the white community.  Waiting, waiting, waiting…..

    • Xanthippe2

      I haven’t yet heard anyone in the MSM mention that the young illegals now made semi-legal will not only compete with young Whites, but will be prefered over them due to affirmative action.

      • Even when they are the majority, affirmative action will remain in place because of “white privilege.”

  • Per se, it is not bad they want federal government to remain in control over most immigration issues. BUT – it should mean that the government actually DOES what it’s supposed to do. Hispanics consider this ruling to be a defeat for them. Are they right, or simply dumb ?

    Anyway, this is an absurd situation: a large group of people are boohooing over tiny measures that try to persuade them to obey perfectly normal laws. I mean….. they are law-breakers (I won’t call them criminals) & would like to legalize this law-breaking status as something normal. This is not, I think, the tipping point, but it is coming awfully close to the boiling point when there would be no possibility of return. Historically, this is something like 1858. or close.

  • xxxtonygunsxxx

    yet another summer festival considering being closed due to blacks shooting and murdering themselves and everybody around them. no art walk no bike trails  fairs swim parties cancelled all because of black violence. the silence from whites is deafening

    • xxxtonygunsxxx

       “She also served as president of the Denver Police Department Black Police Officers Organization.” ………so lets see, a black police officer president of a segregationist police society for the advancement of blacks is shot by a black…. i need an aspirin

  • IstvanIN

    White America has been told that this is NOT your country, that you may
    not defend yourselves, that the future is is not yours and now get out
    of the way.  Secession is the only answer.

    • When the economy collapses, get ready for an “American Spring.” The race riots will make this a racial thing. The mob attacks in major cities are only the beginning, in a few years they will be too big and frequent to ignore. Even if liberals try to make it a liberal vs. conservative thing, it won’t hold. I also cannot see National Guard or US military firing on hordes of non-violent white protesters.

  • If you’ve ever been in an aircraft or car accident then you know the feeling I’m talking about:  Events take place and your observation of them is totally “off” (almost surreal) because you are disconnected.  You’re not really “there” for a few moments.

    That’s how I feel about America.  I read and hear about the idiocy and outrages happening almost daily and it’s as if none of it is real or it’s happening to someone else, somewhere else.  I feel strangely disconnected and almost at the point of no longer caring.  (When the Titanic is sinking, what’s it matter if the piano gets a few more scratches in it?)

    I mean, what’s one more murder of a young white woman by a black beast?  Or another gang of blacks terrorizing a street?  Or another bit of tyranny from Obama and his henchmen? 

    It’s as if we have now gone so far that you can almost see the brick wall rushing toward you and you’re powerless to stop it.  All you can do is hang on tight and reach out to protect the loved one sitting next to you. 

    Concerned Chimpmaster

    • IstvanIN

      You got it!  Like being on a roller-coaster.  You can’t stop it, you just have to ride it out until the ride is over.  That so many white people are going along with this.  You can tell that they go along with it from the way they vote to the Obama 2012 bumper stickers on their cars to the fact that they willingly die in wars for a country that poops on them.  It is surreal.

    • I always described it as a “slow-motion train wreck.” Current trends WILL lead either to an all out race war or the gradual extinction of the white race. The USA is gone, my only hope is that one day we can rebuild it.

  • Dave4088

    Republican oriented news organizations haven been busy putting loads of lip gloss on this pig.  Only one of the four provisions were upheld but the ruling is such that it leaves the door wide open to challenges in state court according to legal experts.  So, states that attempt to enforce that one provision will be thwarted at every turn by the federal government and the well heeled pro-immigration lobby.  Eventually, the state treasury will be drained fighting lawsuits and they will simply stop enforcing the provision out of necessity.   And they call this a victory? 

    White Americans must come to the realization that this is no longer our country and we, and not the criminal illegal aliens, are considered interlopers in the new nation being forged by the radical, anti-white left.   The Obama EO granting temporary amnesty and this latest SCOTUS ruling essentially gutting SB1070 is not a coincidence in my humble opinion.  

  • I predict the the tanning tax,  aka the white people tax and used to fund obammaba care  will be struck down on thursday

  • jeffaral

    Justice Elena KAGAN.   I like her surname!   Or maybe not…..

  • Joe whatever

     Yeah I’m A Ronnie worshiper … He was promised the world  from the libs if he enacted the so called amnesty but was stiffed in the end..  I can’t explain it here fully but if you really want
    to know what went wrong , read… Mark Levin’s
    Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto  
    I’m sure you’ve heard all about him..

  • Why?

    Judge Roberts, A republican appointee from W. Bush, just sided with the liberals on this case!

    Voting for Romney on the basis of appointments will just get us more Judge Roberts clones….

  • Kurt Plummer


    Yes. Clear, concise and completely logical. Compare that to the Romney quote later in the article blathering about a bi-partisan solution instead of demanding that the laws on the books simply be enforced immediately.

    That’s the whole point, don’tcha know?  The President is the SOLE person allowed to represent us in any binding way on international treaties and that also makes him the -sole- target for any blame resulting from negative consequences to massive global migrations of unwanted populations to the still remarkably empty (i.e. not ruined by crippling numbers of the worthless as foreign born) USA.

    What Romney has just done is laugh in Obama’s face for first not putting together a package deal whereby ‘enforcing the law of the land’ means _having_ a law, duly enacted through Congress, which allows Arizona’s little spat to be quashed out of hand.  Not because it is ‘The Federal Governments’ Job’ to decide whether to allow more idiots in.

    But because it is officially not the _U.S. Populations Right_ (anymore) to say “Oh no you don’t!” with sufficient violence of intent to replace those who argue with treason to their children.

    On the pathway to Global Corporate Rule (probably in trade for debt layoff…), somewhere between the UN and the G8, it has already been decided that the next step in the degradation of the West to a commonality with the already critically stupid and easily dominated Third World -requires- that we have some X-billion lives here, before 2100.  All dependent on welfare.  None willing or interested in sharing our interests above any others because they are as racist about their own people’s needs as we are.

    Obama and the Dems thought they could do it on the simple puffed-chest basis of what the Federal Government Says.  When in fact The People believe that while the Feds control the States, we control the Feds.  And Romney and the other traitors are simply gloating about the Dems failure to dot all i’s and cross all t’s by _changing The Constitution_ to make it impossible to argue with, once it’s done.

    In this, it’s amazing how people have been tricked into conflating ‘for the good of themselves’ with ‘Constintutionality’.  As though they cannot have the one unless it’s draped in the holiness of the other.

    The Constitution is itself a whip that our masters only pick up to use against us, when all else fails.  Because it’s use is meant to imply all those things which we once got right.  Change the laws so that the Constitution no longer means what it does and it will lose it’s appeal as intimidatory effect.

  • Kurt Plummer

     The only way to accomplish what we need and desire is to expel all liberals, blacks and hispanics from a State which secedes. Or, to round them up and deport them as a State in complete defiance of the Feds. And be prepared to use armed force in defense of a State against the Feds.

    Which would require the threat to use extant, national, nuclear weapons on U.S. Soil in a sudden and irrevocable escalation as declaration like The South only wished it could have done.  Because we don’t have the means to hold off even a small level (National Guard) force construct as the U.S. Army could easily put in the field within week of standup.

    Remember folks, this has been tried before-

    Main article: Arkansas National Guard and the Integration of Central High School
    Several segregationist councils threatened to hold protests at Central High and physically block the black students from entering the school. Governor Orval Faubus deployed the Arkansas National Guard to support the segregationists on September 4, 1957. The sight of a line of soldiers blocking nine black students from attending high school made national headlines and polarized the nation. Regarding the accompanying crowd, one of the nine black students, Elizabeth Eckford, recalled
    They moved closer and closer… Somebody started yelling… I tried to see a friendly face somewhere in the crowd—someone who maybe could help. I looked into the face of an old woman and it seemed a kind face, but when I looked at her again, she spat on me.[4]
    On September 9, Little Rock School District issued a statement condemning the governor’s deployment of soldiers to the high school and called for a citywide prayer service on September 12. Even President Dwight Eisenhower attempted to de-escalate the situation and summoned Faubus to meet him. The President warned the governor not to defy the Supreme Court’s ruling.[5]
    [edit] Armed escort
    Woodrow Nilson Mann, the Mayor of Little Rock, asked President Eisenhower to send federal troops to enforce integration and protect the nine students. On September 24, the President ordered the 101st Airborne Division of the United States Army to Little Rock and federalized the entire 10,000 member Arkansas National Guard, taking it out of the hands of Faubus.

    Over peanuts compared to giving away the best of the U.S. because these people cannot make a go of it in their own lands and the globalists want their numbers to diffuse our will.

    There is a massive, teetering, balancing act going on here, as the powers that would-be seek to destabilize national rule _just enough_ that they can step in with global rule.

    That is what 1965 was about.  That is what the endless Cold War and it’s trillions in deficit spending were about.  That is what the Housing Bubble was about.

    All designed to put us into such absurd fiscal situation that we cannot remain independent of ‘world will’ to share all that we have.  Including our blood lines and our soil.

    From the highest to the lowest, we are envied and despised our greatness.  As such NONE want the United States to remain a true, free, independent, nation.

    And with that kind of dissolution at stake, there will be no one allowed to provide a Switzerland or Monaco holdout that could in -any way- be seen to provide an ‘alternative to the obvious’ which is to say the inevitable.

    As the Universalists see it.

    To make such a standup nation last long enough to sign into effect a new Constitution, you would have to literally have your hand right on the button and make the other side absolutely certain that you will press it to destroy EVERYTHING rather than be their slaves any longer.

    That’s right.  I said slaves.

    For that is our future.  As Freedom was our past.

    And the world is not worth it.  They do not deserve that ultimate ‘white privilege’.  They never will.

    But we cannot hold, with Minute Men ideals.  The technology bias has simply changed out of all scope of comparison with 1776.

  • patriotdad76

    Romney is a turd.

    He took the ‘strongest’ stance on immigration during the primary, and now he has flipped back to his liberal roots and seems to be pushing the wide open border agenda of the globalists hell bent on destroying America’s culture and history.

  • How bad was Romney’s “response?”

    Even the one who ties half his brain behind his back just to make it fair was outraged:

  • Think about all the soldiers who fought 3rd worlders to protect their country. Now they come home and there are no jobs. Think of all the police that have spent their careers arresting blacks and hispanics that rob, rape and kill whites. Most soldiers and law enforcement are right-leaning and when the government can no longer pay them, they will join our side.