The Supreme Court did not issue their ruling on the Affordable Care Act today. That decision will almost certainly be announced on Thursday as I am preparing to go on vacation. Doesn’t that figure? However, the Supreme Court did rule on S.B. 1070, the Arizona immigration law. It basically ruled in the Obama administration’s favor, although it did allow one part of the law to stand (at least, for now).
1. Police Checks. Section 2(B) of the law requires the police to check the immigration status of persons whom they detain before releasing them. It also allows the police to stop and detain anyone suspected of being an undocumented immigrant. The Court held that the lower courts were wrong to prevent this provision from going into effect while its lawfulness is being litigated. It was not sufficiently clear that the provision would be held preempted, the Court held. The Court took pains to point out that the law, on its face, prohibits stops based on race or national origin and provides that the stops must be conducted consistent with federal immigration and civil rights laws. However, it held open that the provision could eventually be invalidated after trial.
The immediate result is that Arizona can continue to harass and detain Latinos even if it can’t deport them unilaterally. Naturally, there are limits imposed by the plain language of the bill, but proving that the effect of this section is to create unlawful racial harassment remains to be proven in court.
While that is being litigated, other red states can pass their own Latino harassment laws, and some may do so. This is bad news for Mitt Romney, who upheld the Arizona law as a model for the country.
Does anyone know what side the Chamber of Commerce took on this? Funny though that Roberts is on board with putting the GOP at a disadvantage long-term with this.
Uhhhh, the purpose of Roberts is to make the GOP look good.. give “advantage” to them?
Wow.. the SCOTUS’s schedule didn’t take into consideraton your vacation schedule.. how dare they!
Not to worry, there will be plenty of carpet chewing and tin foil hat proclamations regarding the big conservative conspiracy– IF any part of the ACA is struck down.
They also ruled today on Montana challenge to unlimited corporate spending. Montana lost- no surprise there.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_CAMPAIGN_FINANCE_MONTANA?SITE=AP&SECTION
=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-06-25-10-07-37
I think I remember that you are coming to Maine for vacation. If you are near the MidCoast area, there are a bunch of us who volunteered on health care who will either be celebrating or drowning our sorrows at our local pub. It is a kid friendly place– we have all gotten pretty tame/lame in our middle age.
Huh that’s weird.
I know a guy from PA who is going to central Maine on vacation at the exact same time.
I’m not leaving until Friday, and won’t arrive in Maine until Saturday. Good to know that there are some fellow progressives up there to greet me.
Will you still be in Maine around the 4th?
Any more “victories” like this and Jan Brewer is going to look like the Black Knight from “Monty Python & the Holy Grail”.
http://youtu.be/zKhEw7nD9C4
(More of my thoughts here http://masscommons.wordpress.com/2012/06/25/sb-1070-ruling-a-victory-for-someone-but-not-for-jan-bre
wer/ and in the diaries.)
Amazingly a rational decision from SCOTUS complete with letting section 2 stand. I know others will disagree but as it is written there is nothing unconstitutional about notifying the federal government of a possible violation of federal law. In fact, California’s decision to not notify the feds of apparent or known violations seems to be unconstitutionally violating the supremacy of federal immigration law, the same issue decided here against Arizona.
They even left the door open for a second look if (if!) Arizona enforces it in a discriminatory manner. Joe Arpaio, please walk into the trap.
I wish Kagan had made it 6 to 3 instead of 5 to 3.