The U.S. Supreme Court today struck down several key components of Arizona’s immigration law. The one provision not invalidated is the so-called “check your papers” provision, which requires police officers to check the immigration status of anyone arrested for any crime.
For now, Arizona can continue to enforce that part of the law. However, the court justices say it could be subject to additional legal challenges.
Other parts of the law, known as SB 1070, made it a crime for immigrants without work permits to seek work and made it a crime for immigrants to fail to carry registration documents.
The Obama administration had challenged Arizona’s law, arguing that immigration enforcement should fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government.
The decision comes on the same day the court was expected to rule on whether President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act is constitutional.
A decision could still come before the end of the week.
At the heart of the matter is the individual mandate.
That’s the part of the Affordable Care Act that requires the vast majority of Americans acquire health insurance, or pay a penalty.
A total of 26 states have filed suit calling it unconstitutional.
Supporters argue the law provides coverage for millions who didn’t have it before, adding that Congress has the authority to regulate commerce.
(Source: NY1)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
5 Responses
The headline could just have easily have read “… upholds key part”. It isn’t clear how a state can criminalize something that is the exclusive responsibility of the Congress, which has decided not to criminalize it. However allowing police to check IDs is just supporting Federal policy, and is probably more important in practice. Criminalizing anything is problematic, since the prosecutor would have to prove beyond a resonable doubt that an individual was not a citizen, and unless they could find some foreign country with a DNA database of its newborns that would be impossible. How do you prove someone was born in a foreign country to alien parents? However deportation is not a crime, so the lower standard of evidence used in civil cases applies.
Strange, quite strange.
If OblameO would actually ENFORCE existing federal law there would be no reason for the AZ law, which was in essence a COPY of the federal law.
whatever happened to that oaf of office the president supposedly said on Jan 20, 2009? He doesn’t follow the constitution.
Thank G-d we will IYH vote him out off office in about 140 days. Too bad we can’t be like the UK because there, the change at 10 Downing Street, happens overnight!
mark leven…in a parliamentry system you couldn’t have a deadlock between the executive and the legislature…because the executive (PM) is selected by the party winning the most seats in the legislative election. The GOP would be the “back benchers,” without the power to stymie the PM, blocking literally every legislative initiative he or she puts forward…explicitly, in public, enunciating a my party uber alles strategy designed solely to deny the PM any legislative victories.
And you know what…Obama may well lose…but he still might win. I remember you blogging in the Fall of 2008 how McCain was sure to win by a double digit percentage. Stick to cameras and IT Old Boy
This is actually a good outcome for Obama. It rejects state efforts to regulate traditionally federal role on immigration but preserves the one aspect of the law which is the emotional hot button for most Hispanics…the right for local and state police to stop anyone they suspect of being an undocumented alien and demand proof of citizenship. This will mobilize the Hispanic vote in November more than any other single factor and alone could decide the outcome in several key states including Nevada and Florida.
Gadolhadorah…correct, and very well said.