… (the majority decision) did so by situating immigration as a matter of national foreign relations, a context in which tolerance for state activity is low. “It is fundamental that foreign countries concerned about the status, safety, and security of their nationals in the United States must be able to confer and communicate on this subject with one national sovereign, not the 50 separate States,” writes Justice Kennedy. “Decisions of this nature touch on foreign relations and must be made with one voice.” The foreign relations framing allowed the Court to apply a relaxed threshold for trumping the state law.

The decision here continues a tradition of immigration law exceptionalism. The Court refused to use the case to advance its federalism agenda, which has been increasingly protective of state power.

The bolding is mine.

They went on to discuss the section 2B part of the ruling.

Restrictionists may cheer about the Court’s holding on Section 2(B), which mandates that state law enforcement officials make a determination of immigration status where there is reasonable suspicion to believe that an alien is illegally present in the United States. That provision got the lion’s share of media attention leading up to the decision, and the early headlines are playing up this part of the bottom line. On this score the decision shows some tolerance for state-level action, not a foregone conclusion from the precedents.

But Section 2(B) lacks teeth: it may require state law enforcement to make immigration status determinations, but there isn’t much that the state can do with determinations once made. The state can pass the information along to federal immigration authorities, who are then free to do nothing. In other words, Section 2(B) won’t result in anybody being deported. Justice Kennedy was, moreover, careful to keep the door open to subsequent challenges of Section 2(B) to the extent that it’s applied in an unreasonable fashion – if it were used, for instance, to justify prolonged detentions. By implementing Section 2(B), the state will buy itself little more than another round in court as immigrant advocates inevitably press civil rights challenges on an “as applied” basis.

The court ruled that it is too soon to invalidate this part of the law,

Actually that is a bit of a reach. The Govt didn’t even try and bring up any reasons for striking down the law but Fed preemption. The court gave a pretty good smack down as to that reasoning. In the opinion it was mentioned, but they certainly didn’t “rule” on something that was never before the court.

Actually, no. Romney should read the ruling.

Honestly I think Az is ahead of the game. They won on what to them was the biggest issue.

That’s right. It’s not a crime for “illegal” immigrants to live and work here without the proper documents. By “here” I mean all 50 states. The United States is one country with one immigration policy, and the Supreme Court means to keep it this way

It is a crime to enter illegally, to overstay, to re enter after deportation, the list goes on.

In most all controversial cases, you know going in you have 4 that will rule upholding the lefts point of view and you have 4 ruling with the conservative point of view. Arguements before the court do not even need to take place for these 8. That leaves one justice that is making the decisions for the court.

I find it troubling when there is so little consideration given to the arguements by the 4 on each side of the issues. It doesn’t matter where you stand, it should concern everyone that the court is so closed minded and is so divided that one judge has so much say in each decision.

And given the possiblity that the next President will be nominating 2 or 3 new justices, does anyone believe the next to go on the bench will be any more open minded on issues than the ones we have today.

If Obama wins, the lefts agenda will fly through the courts, no questions ask and if Romney is elected, the rights agenda will fly through, no questions ask.

It doesn’t make me feel secure to know the court will rubber stamp anything their party will legislate.