Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search

Arizona: Did Supreme Court take the steam out of states' immigration activism?

A majority of Americans want to see their states adopt immigration laws similar to Arizona’s. But the Supreme Court’s decision Monday may give state legislators more wiggle room to avoid the subject.

By Patrik JonssonStaff writer / June 25, 2012

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer reads a statement as she reacts to the United States Supreme Court decision regarding Arizona's controversial immigration law, SB1070, coming down at the Arizona Capitol Monday, June 25, in Phoenix.

Ross D. Franklin/AP



While the US Supreme Court on Monday struck down major pieces of Arizona’s controversial immigration law as state overreach, it’s far from clear whether the ruling will quash legislative efforts in other states to ferret out illegal immigrants in their populations.

Skip to next paragraph

The political backlash over state immigration laws and the natural ebbing of illegal migration resulting from the poor economy were two reasons the number of immigration-related bills at the state level declined by 44 percent between 2011 and 2012.

But a big part of that equation was also the Supreme Court’s pondering of Arizona’s SB 1070, as states awaited an inkling of where the nation’s top judges stood on the topic.

The decision on Monday was in parts decisive, chiding Arizona at one point for introducing “intrusions on the federal scheme.” But it left intact the Arizona law’s “papers please” provision that allows police officers to ask for identification from people they suspect to be in the country illegally.

That caveat leaves enough of an opening for state legislators to keep weighing the majority support among Americans for tough immigration-related laws against such laws' political and economic risks.

“Short term this decision keeps immigration as a front-and-center issue in the 2012 election, because it didn’t provide closure and essentially told both sides to go at it,” says Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. “In the long term, what it means is that state legislatures, at least in some states, will likely have to deal with this in terms of whether they get an Arizona-style law that includes the parts that got the seal of approval.”

The Supreme Court did draw some definitive lines for states pondering Arizona-style laws. Making it a state crime for an illegal immigrant to seek work and walk around without immigration papers, for example, is not allowed. Also not allowed is giving police authority to arrest people for immigration-related crimes.

"Federal law makes a single sovereign responsible for maintaining a comprehensive and unified system to keep track of aliens within the nation's borders,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the 5-to-3 majority opinion. Justice Kennedy noted specifically that if the court allowed Arizona to arrest people for not carrying papers attesting to their legal residency status, "every state could give itself independent authority to prosecute federal registration violations."

On the “papers, please” aspect, the court in effect said it needs to be tested after implementation, since the justices could not gauge its legal implications without seeing it at play. The Arizona law allows police officers [in the process of enforcing other laws] to check the immigration status of people they reasonably believe to be in the country illegally – a key part of the broader symbolism of state immigration laws intended to push illegal immigrants to move elsewhere.

That spectre of “racial profiling” is a critical one as attitudes around immigration are looming larger in the presidential election.


Read Comments

View reader comments | Comment on this story

  • Weekly review of global news and ideas
  • Balanced, insightful and trustworthy
  • Subscribe in print or digital

Special Offer


Doing Good


What happens when ordinary people decide to pay it forward? Extraordinary change...

Danny Bent poses at the starting line of the Boston Marathon in Hopkinton, Mass.

After the Boston Marathon bombings, Danny Bent took on a cross-country challenge

The athlete-adventurer co-founded a relay run called One Run for Boston that started in Los Angeles and ended at the marathon finish line to raise funds for victims.

Become a fan! Follow us! Google+ YouTube See our feeds!