High court rejects parts of Ariz. immigration law

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court struck down three portions of Arizona's controversial immigration law on Monday, but allowed one of the key provisions to stand in a highly anticipated split decision.

The justices ruled that Arizona overstepped its authority by creating state crimes targeting illegal immigrants. One provision made it a state crime for immigrants not to carry federal registration papers and another created a crime for soliciting work. The third portion of the law struck down allowed state and local police to arrest illegal immigrants without a warrant in some cases.

The court did allow the main component of the law to stand. That requires state and local police to check the immigration status of people they've stopped or detained if a "reasonable suspicion" exists that the person is in the country illegally.

But the court indicated that section could face further legal challenges. The court said it's hard to gauge the impact of that section before it goes into law, and specifically stated that its order does not prevent further lawsuits once the law goes into effect.

"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 (Section 2(B)) will be construed in a way that creates a conflict with federal law," the opinion read.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the bill into law a little more than two years ago, focused on the portion of the law that survived the Supreme Court review. She said the state would immediately begin retraining all its officers to implement that part of the law.

"Today's decision by the U.S. Supreme Court is a victory for the rule of law," the Republican governor said in a statement. "It is also a victory for the 10th Amendment and all Americans who believe in the inherent right and responsibility of states to defend their citizens. After more than two years of legal challenges, the heart of SB 1070 can now be implemented in accordance with the U.S. Constitution."

Karen Tumlin, managing attorney for the National Immigration Law Center, which has filed several lawsuits against Arizona over its immigration law, called Brewer's reaction misguided because the surviving portion of the law barely "squeezed past" the court's review.

"This is not a green light," Tumlin said. "It said 'We're letting it go today cautiously' and marked the constitutional boundaries around this provision. It's quite clear that this is just the opening round of legal challenges."

The law center and other groups already have pending lawsuits challenging Arizona's law on other grounds, so it's unclear when and if the law would officially go into effect.

President Obama said he is pleased with the ruling.

"What this decision makes unmistakably clear is that Congress must act on comprehensive immigration reform," Obama said. "A patchwork of state laws is not a solution to our broken immigration system -- it's part of the problem."

Obama said: "I agree with the Court that individuals cannot be detained solely to verify their immigration status. No American should ever live under a cloud of suspicion just because of what they look like."

Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion for the court that was unanimous on allowing the status checks to go forward. The court was divided 5-3 on striking down the other portions.