This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jun/25/supreme-court-healthcare-ruling-live

The article has changed 14 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 10 Version 11
Supreme court strikes down key parts of Arizona immigration law – live Supreme court strikes down key parts of Arizona immigration law – live
(40 minutes later)
5.34pm: The White House has finally reacted to the other supreme court decision this morning, when the court threw out a century-old Montana law limiting political donations – and avoiding a challenge to the Citizens United campaign financing decision that has opened the floodgates to political donations.
Via the Huffington Post, a statement from White House spokesman Eric Schultz:
We are disappointed that the Supreme Court did not take the opportunity presented by the Montana case to revisit its decision in Citizens United.
In the aftermath of the Citizens United decision, we have seen unprecedented amounts of campaign spending, often by groups that won't disclose their donors.
Citizens United was wrong when it was decided and as two Supreme Court Justices have observed since, independent expenditures by corporations are threatening the health of our democracy.
Citizens United mistakenly overruled longstanding cases that protected the fairness and integrity of elections. Unfortunately, the Court today missed an opportunity to correct that mistake.
5.10pm: On today's supreme court decision, Mitt Romney told a closed audience at a Scottsdale, Arizona fundraiser this afternoon:
I would have preferred to see the Supreme Court give more latitude to the states, not less. And there are states now under this decision have less authority, less latitude to enforce immigration laws.
Romney gives no details in exactly what areas states should have latitude – issuing their own visas? – and in what may be an instance of projection on his part describes the outcome as "a muddle":
And it's really become a muddle. But it didn't have to be this way. The President promised in his campaign that in the first year he would take on immigration and solve our immigration challenges, put in place a long term program to care for those who want to come here legally to deal with illegal immigration, to deal with securing our borders.
Naturally, Romney pledged that he would do all these things in his first year, although without detailing what exactly that would be.
I've concluded even Mitt Romney doesn't know where Mitt Romney stands on the Supreme Court ruling and immigration.
More accurately, Mitt Romney is trying to figure out what Mitt Romney thinks.
The fundraising event is Scottsdale raised $2m, according to AP.
5pm: Mitt Romney has now broken his silence – sort of – on the supreme court decision on Arizona's immigration laws.
Romney at AZ funder on today's SCOTUS ruling: "I would have preferred to see the Supreme Court give more latitude to the states not less"
There's a longer pool report out there somewhere.
4.20pm: Meanwhile, aboard Air Force One, White House spokesman Jay Carney offers a warning shot to Arizona in the wake of the supreme court decision today:4.20pm: Meanwhile, aboard Air Force One, White House spokesman Jay Carney offers a warning shot to Arizona in the wake of the supreme court decision today:
Going forward, we must ensure that Arizona law enforcement officials do not implement Section 2 in a manner that undermines the civil rights of Americans. We are heartened that the Court recognized that detaining individuals solely to verify their immigration status would raise constitutional concerns.Going forward, we must ensure that Arizona law enforcement officials do not implement Section 2 in a manner that undermines the civil rights of Americans. We are heartened that the Court recognized that detaining individuals solely to verify their immigration status would raise constitutional concerns.
3.48pm: And while all the excitement over the supreme court was going on this morning, an unusually upbeat snippet of economic news got lost in the tumult:3.48pm: And while all the excitement over the supreme court was going on this morning, an unusually upbeat snippet of economic news got lost in the tumult:
The Commerce Department says sales of new homes increased 7.6 percent in May from April to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 369,000 homes. That's the best pace since April 2010, the last month that buyers could qualify for a federal home-buying tax credit.The Commerce Department says sales of new homes increased 7.6 percent in May from April to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 369,000 homes. That's the best pace since April 2010, the last month that buyers could qualify for a federal home-buying tax credit.
Sales are increasing despite a sluggish job market that has slowed other areas of the economy.Sales are increasing despite a sluggish job market that has slowed other areas of the economy.
Though new homes represent less than 20 percent of the housing market, they have an outsize impact on the economy. Each home built creates an average of three jobs for a year and generates about $90,000 in tax revenue, according to the National Association of Home Builders.Though new homes represent less than 20 percent of the housing market, they have an outsize impact on the economy. Each home built creates an average of three jobs for a year and generates about $90,000 in tax revenue, according to the National Association of Home Builders.
3.25pm: Comedy gold on the Mitt Romney campaign plane just now, as reporters pressed Romney's spokesperson Rick Gorka over what Romney's position on the supreme court ruling and Arizona's immigration law actually is.3.25pm: Comedy gold on the Mitt Romney campaign plane just now, as reporters pressed Romney's spokesperson Rick Gorka over what Romney's position on the supreme court ruling and Arizona's immigration law actually is.
It's a long and – frankly – circular business, kind of like a sit-com version of Waiting for Godot. Here's a taste:It's a long and – frankly – circular business, kind of like a sit-com version of Waiting for Godot. Here's a taste:
Question: Does [Romney] support the law as it was drafted in Arizona?Question: Does [Romney] support the law as it was drafted in Arizona?
Rick Gorka: The governor supports the right of states, that's all we're going to say on this issue.Rick Gorka: The governor supports the right of states, that's all we're going to say on this issue.
Q: Does he have a position on the law, or no position?Q: Does he have a position on the law, or no position?
Gorka: The governor has his own immigration policy that he laid out in Orlando and in the primary, which he would implement as president which would address this issue. Whereas Obama has had four years in the office and has yet to address it in a meaningful way.Gorka: The governor has his own immigration policy that he laid out in Orlando and in the primary, which he would implement as president which would address this issue. Whereas Obama has had four years in the office and has yet to address it in a meaningful way.
Q: But does the Governor have a position on the Arizona law besides supporting the right of states?Q: But does the Governor have a position on the Arizona law besides supporting the right of states?
Gorka: This debate is sprung from the president failing to address this issue, so each state is left and has the power to draft and enact their own immigration policy.Gorka: This debate is sprung from the president failing to address this issue, so each state is left and has the power to draft and enact their own immigration policy.
Q: But the Arizona law does very specific things, does the governor support those things that the Arizona law does?Q: But the Arizona law does very specific things, does the governor support those things that the Arizona law does?
Gorka: We've addressed this.Gorka: We've addressed this.
Q: What is his position on the actual law in Arizona?Q: What is his position on the actual law in Arizona?
Gorka: Again, each state has the right within the Constitution to craft their own immigration laws since the federal government has failed.Gorka: Again, each state has the right within the Constitution to craft their own immigration laws since the federal government has failed.
Q: But does he think about the law in Arizona? You're just talking about the states right to have a law but you're not giving any position on the actual law.Q: But does he think about the law in Arizona? You're just talking about the states right to have a law but you're not giving any position on the actual law.
And so it goes on. And on.And so it goes on. And on.
2.48pm: Still no joy from Mitt Romney's brain about the Arizona decision today, Ginger Gibson of Politico reports:2.48pm: Still no joy from Mitt Romney's brain about the Arizona decision today, Ginger Gibson of Politico reports:
Romney traveling press secretary took questions from the press. And I still don't know what Romney thinks of the SCOTUS ruling today.Romney traveling press secretary took questions from the press. And I still don't know what Romney thinks of the SCOTUS ruling today.
It's not like this was out of the blue – the case has been before the supreme court and highly publicised.It's not like this was out of the blue – the case has been before the supreme court and highly publicised.
2.39pm: Barack Obama is appearing at a campaign event in Durham, New Hampshire right now, and it looks like a big crowd in the Granite State.2.39pm: Barack Obama is appearing at a campaign event in Durham, New Hampshire right now, and it looks like a big crowd in the Granite State.
No mention of immigration, it seems, although the campaign has given out a long statement earlier.No mention of immigration, it seems, although the campaign has given out a long statement earlier.
Instead, Obama is laying into Mitt Romney's business career – and poking fun at the Romney campaign's attempts to explain the difference between off-shoring and out-sourcing. "That's what they said, I'm not making this stuff up," says Obama, repeating a familiar line of attack against Romney.Instead, Obama is laying into Mitt Romney's business career – and poking fun at the Romney campaign's attempts to explain the difference between off-shoring and out-sourcing. "That's what they said, I'm not making this stuff up," says Obama, repeating a familiar line of attack against Romney.
2.17pm: Arizona governor Jan Brewer gives her take on the supreme court decision striking down much of her own immigration law, SB1070, in a press conference in which she says: "Today, Senate bill 1070 was vindicated and the heart of the bill upheld, unanimously":2.17pm: Arizona governor Jan Brewer gives her take on the supreme court decision striking down much of her own immigration law, SB1070, in a press conference in which she says: "Today, Senate bill 1070 was vindicated and the heart of the bill upheld, unanimously":
Brewer here also displays a slight tinge of paranoia:Brewer here also displays a slight tinge of paranoia:
We know the eyes of the world will be upon us. We know the critics will be watching and waiting, hoping for another opportunity to continue their assault against our state.We know the eyes of the world will be upon us. We know the critics will be watching and waiting, hoping for another opportunity to continue their assault against our state.
1.53pm: Now it appears Mitt Romney won't indicate whether or not he agrees with today's supreme court ruling on Arizona:1.53pm: Now it appears Mitt Romney won't indicate whether or not he agrees with today's supreme court ruling on Arizona:
Romney spox Gorka holds 7 min gaggle with traveling press but won't say whether Romney agrees with SCOTUS on AZ law.Romney spox Gorka holds 7 min gaggle with traveling press but won't say whether Romney agrees with SCOTUS on AZ law.
I should really translate this tweet from the Washington Post's Philip Rucker into a close approximation of English:I should really translate this tweet from the Washington Post's Philip Rucker into a close approximation of English:
Mitt Romney campaign spokesman Rick Gorka held a seven-minute-long Q&A session with reporters but wouldn't say when asked if the candidate himself agrees with the supreme court's decisions involving Arizona's controversial immigration law known as SB1070.Mitt Romney campaign spokesman Rick Gorka held a seven-minute-long Q&A session with reporters but wouldn't say when asked if the candidate himself agrees with the supreme court's decisions involving Arizona's controversial immigration law known as SB1070.
1.42pm: The Service Employees International Union says that there's a cloud in the silver lining of today's Arizona decision, that the ruling "legitimises racial profiling":1.42pm: The Service Employees International Union says that there's a cloud in the silver lining of today's Arizona decision, that the ruling "legitimises racial profiling":
The Supreme Court has upheld a portion of the law that cracks the core of our principles – justice and equality, the very foundation America's immigrant ancestors sought. The Arizona law, in effect, legitimizes racial profiling.The Supreme Court has upheld a portion of the law that cracks the core of our principles – justice and equality, the very foundation America's immigrant ancestors sought. The Arizona law, in effect, legitimizes racial profiling.
The Court may have decided, but we – the people – will have the final say.The Court may have decided, but we – the people – will have the final say.
This ruling makes clear that our campaign to mobilize Latino voters and communities of color to organize and grow our electoral power is an absolute necessity. On November 6, we will be heard at the ballot box.This ruling makes clear that our campaign to mobilize Latino voters and communities of color to organize and grow our electoral power is an absolute necessity. On November 6, we will be heard at the ballot box.
1.35pm: The super-vigilant Ana Marie Cox spots Justice Scalia making mischief in his dissent from today's Arizona decision.1.35pm: The super-vigilant Ana Marie Cox spots Justice Scalia making mischief in his dissent from today's Arizona decision.
Scalia cites Southern states' ability to restrict immigration of freed blacks as a precedent for the AZ law. He is not *wrong,* I guess?Scalia cites Southern states' ability to restrict immigration of freed blacks as a precedent for the AZ law. He is not *wrong,* I guess?
Here's what Scalia had to say in today's decision:Here's what Scalia had to say in today's decision:
Notwithstanding "[t]he myth of an era of unrestricted immigration" in the first 100 years of the Republic, the States enacted numerous laws restricting the immigration of certain classes of aliens, including convicted crimi­nals, indigents, persons with contagious diseases, and (in Southern States) freed blacks.Notwithstanding "[t]he myth of an era of unrestricted immigration" in the first 100 years of the Republic, the States enacted numerous laws restricting the immigration of certain classes of aliens, including convicted crimi­nals, indigents, persons with contagious diseases, and (in Southern States) freed blacks.
Those were the days. Ah yes, "freed blacks" indeed. And those southern states had some laws that the supreme court upheld, if we recall.Those were the days. Ah yes, "freed blacks" indeed. And those southern states had some laws that the supreme court upheld, if we recall.
1.15pm: Senate majority leader Harry Reid of Nevada is more worried about what the supreme court left in than what it overturned in Arizona's law:1.15pm: Senate majority leader Harry Reid of Nevada is more worried about what the supreme court left in than what it overturned in Arizona's law:
I am greatly concerned that the provision putting American citizens in danger of being detained by police unless they carry their immigration papers at all times will lead to a system of racial profiling.I am greatly concerned that the provision putting American citizens in danger of being detained by police unless they carry their immigration papers at all times will lead to a system of racial profiling.
1pm: The internet appears to be filling up with dismay at Mitt Romney's milque-toast response to the supreme court's Arizona immigration ruling.1pm: The internet appears to be filling up with dismay at Mitt Romney's milque-toast response to the supreme court's Arizona immigration ruling.
Even Romney's most vocal media cheerleader, the Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin, is moved to voice mild criticism of his non-response:Even Romney's most vocal media cheerleader, the Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin, is moved to voice mild criticism of his non-response:
The statement is adequate, but could have been more compelling.... One senses that, in its understandable focus on the economy, the Romney team doesn't appreciate the importance of some other big themes (eg, an out-of-control executive).The statement is adequate, but could have been more compelling.... One senses that, in its understandable focus on the economy, the Romney team doesn't appreciate the importance of some other big themes (eg, an out-of-control executive).
12.38pm: Here's the full response from President Obama on today's supreme court ruling on Arizona's immigration law:12.38pm: Here's the full response from President Obama on today's supreme court ruling on Arizona's immigration law:
I am pleased that the Supreme Court has struck down key provisions of Arizona's immigration law. What this decision makes unmistakably clear is that Congress must act on comprehensive immigration reform. A patchwork of state laws is not a solution to our broken immigration system – it's part of the problem.I am pleased that the Supreme Court has struck down key provisions of Arizona's immigration law. What this decision makes unmistakably clear is that Congress must act on comprehensive immigration reform. A patchwork of state laws is not a solution to our broken immigration system – it's part of the problem.
At the same time, I remain concerned about the practical impact of the remaining provision of the Arizona law that requires local law enforcement officials to check the immigration status of anyone they even suspect to be here illegally. 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. Going forward, we must ensure that Arizona law enforcement officials do not enforce this law in a manner that undermines the civil rights of Americans, as the Court's decision recognizes. Furthermore, we will continue to enforce our immigration laws by focusing on our most important priorities like border security and criminals who endanger our communities, and not, for example, students who earn their education – which is why the Department of Homeland Security announced earlier this month that it will lift the shadow of deportation from young people who were brought to the United States as children through no fault of their own.At the same time, I remain concerned about the practical impact of the remaining provision of the Arizona law that requires local law enforcement officials to check the immigration status of anyone they even suspect to be here illegally. 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. Going forward, we must ensure that Arizona law enforcement officials do not enforce this law in a manner that undermines the civil rights of Americans, as the Court's decision recognizes. Furthermore, we will continue to enforce our immigration laws by focusing on our most important priorities like border security and criminals who endanger our communities, and not, for example, students who earn their education – which is why the Department of Homeland Security announced earlier this month that it will lift the shadow of deportation from young people who were brought to the United States as children through no fault of their own.
I will work with anyone in Congress who's willing to make progress on comprehensive immigration reform that addresses our economic needs and security needs, and upholds our tradition as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. And in the meantime, we will continue to use every federal resource to protect the safety and civil rights of all Americans, and treat all our people with dignity and respect. We can solve these challenges not in spite of our most cherished values – but because of them. What makes us American is not a question of what we look like or what our names are. What makes us American is our shared belief in the enduring promise of this country – and our shared responsibility to leave it more generous and more hopeful than we found it.I will work with anyone in Congress who's willing to make progress on comprehensive immigration reform that addresses our economic needs and security needs, and upholds our tradition as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. And in the meantime, we will continue to use every federal resource to protect the safety and civil rights of all Americans, and treat all our people with dignity and respect. We can solve these challenges not in spite of our most cherished values – but because of them. What makes us American is not a question of what we look like or what our names are. What makes us American is our shared belief in the enduring promise of this country – and our shared responsibility to leave it more generous and more hopeful than we found it.
12.20pm: Here's the full statement from Arizona governor Jan Brewer in the wake of the supreme court ruling:12.20pm: Here's the full statement from Arizona governor Jan Brewer in the wake of the supreme court ruling:
While we are grateful for this legal victory, today is an opportunity to reflect on our journey and focus upon the true task ahead: the implementation and enforcement of this law in an even-handed manner that lives up to our highest ideals as American citizens. I know the State of Arizona and its law enforcement officers are up to the task. The case for SB 1070 has always been about our support for the rule of law. That means every law, including those against both illegal immigration and racial profiling. Law enforcement will be held accountable should this statute be misused in a fashion that violates an individual's civil rights.While we are grateful for this legal victory, today is an opportunity to reflect on our journey and focus upon the true task ahead: the implementation and enforcement of this law in an even-handed manner that lives up to our highest ideals as American citizens. I know the State of Arizona and its law enforcement officers are up to the task. The case for SB 1070 has always been about our support for the rule of law. That means every law, including those against both illegal immigration and racial profiling. Law enforcement will be held accountable should this statute be misused in a fashion that violates an individual's civil rights.
The last two years have been spent in preparation for this ruling. Upon signing SB 1070 in 2010, I issued an Executive Order directing the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board to develop and provide training to ensure our officers are prepared to enforce this law efficiently, effectively and in a manner consistent with the Constitution. In recent days, in anticipation of this decision, I issued a new Executive Order asking that this training be made available once again to all of Arizona's law enforcement officers. I am confident our officers are prepared to carry out this law responsibly and lawfully. Nothing less is acceptable.The last two years have been spent in preparation for this ruling. Upon signing SB 1070 in 2010, I issued an Executive Order directing the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board to develop and provide training to ensure our officers are prepared to enforce this law efficiently, effectively and in a manner consistent with the Constitution. In recent days, in anticipation of this decision, I issued a new Executive Order asking that this training be made available once again to all of Arizona's law enforcement officers. I am confident our officers are prepared to carry out this law responsibly and lawfully. Nothing less is acceptable.
Of course, today's ruling does not mark the end of our journey. It can be expected that legal challenges to SB1070 and the State of Arizona will continue. Our critics are already preparing new litigation tactics in response to their loss at the Supreme Court, and undoubtedly will allege inequities in the implementation of the law. As I said two years ago on the day I signed SB1070 into law, We cannot give them that chance. We must use this new tool wisely, and fight for our safety with the honor Arizona deserves.Of course, today's ruling does not mark the end of our journey. It can be expected that legal challenges to SB1070 and the State of Arizona will continue. Our critics are already preparing new litigation tactics in response to their loss at the Supreme Court, and undoubtedly will allege inequities in the implementation of the law. As I said two years ago on the day I signed SB1070 into law, We cannot give them that chance. We must use this new tool wisely, and fight for our safety with the honor Arizona deserves.
Notice that Brewer is carefully trying to steer away from the possibility of a challenge to the police enforcement provision, section 2B, in the law.Notice that Brewer is carefully trying to steer away from the possibility of a challenge to the police enforcement provision, section 2B, in the law.
12.16pm: Today's other big decision was the supreme court over-ruling the ability of states to automatically impose sentences of life imprisonment without parole on those aged under 18.12.16pm: Today's other big decision was the supreme court over-ruling the ability of states to automatically impose sentences of life imprisonment without parole on those aged under 18.
Today's decision follows other recent rulings, including ruling out the death penalty for juveniles and life without parole for young people whose crimes did not involve killing. Today's ruling left open the possibility that judges could choose to sentence juveniles to life without parole in individual cases of murder but only at their discretion.Today's decision follows other recent rulings, including ruling out the death penalty for juveniles and life without parole for young people whose crimes did not involve killing. Today's ruling left open the possibility that judges could choose to sentence juveniles to life without parole in individual cases of murder but only at their discretion.
According to this 2011 graphic, more than 2,500 juveniles are serving life without parole in the US, with 71 having been just 13 or 14 years old when they committed the crime for which they were convicted.According to this 2011 graphic, more than 2,500 juveniles are serving life without parole in the US, with 71 having been just 13 or 14 years old when they committed the crime for which they were convicted.
Pennsylvania is the most enthusiastic permanent prisoner of juveniles with mandatory sentencing regardless of age: in April 2011 there were 444 of them behind bars without hope of parole.Pennsylvania is the most enthusiastic permanent prisoner of juveniles with mandatory sentencing regardless of age: in April 2011 there were 444 of them behind bars without hope of parole.
AP reports that the majority decision held "that mandatory life without parole for those under the age of 18 at the time of their crimes violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on 'cruel and unusual punishment,'" according to Justice Elena Kagan.AP reports that the majority decision held "that mandatory life without parole for those under the age of 18 at the time of their crimes violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on 'cruel and unusual punishment,'" according to Justice Elena Kagan.
Chief Justice John Roberts and justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented.Chief Justice John Roberts and justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented.
"Neither the text of the Constitution or our precedent prohibits legislatures from requiring that juvenile murderers be sentenced to life without parole," Roberts said."Neither the text of the Constitution or our precedent prohibits legislatures from requiring that juvenile murderers be sentenced to life without parole," Roberts said.
The decision came in the robbery and murder cases of Evan Miller and Kuntrell Jackson, who were 14 when they were convicted. Miller was convicted of killing a man in Alabama. Jackson was convicted of being an accomplice in an Arkansas robbery that ended in someone else committing murder.The decision came in the robbery and murder cases of Evan Miller and Kuntrell Jackson, who were 14 when they were convicted. Miller was convicted of killing a man in Alabama. Jackson was convicted of being an accomplice in an Arkansas robbery that ended in someone else committing murder.
12.05pm: The legal ramifications of the Arizona decision are considered by the New York Times:12.05pm: The legal ramifications of the Arizona decision are considered by the New York Times:
In sustaining one provision and blocking others, the decision amounted to a road map for permissible state efforts in this area. Several other states have enacted tough measures to stem illegal immigration, including ones patterned after the Arizona law, among them Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah.In sustaining one provision and blocking others, the decision amounted to a road map for permissible state efforts in this area. Several other states have enacted tough measures to stem illegal immigration, including ones patterned after the Arizona law, among them Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah.
Lower courts have stayed the implementation of parts of those laws, and they will now revisit those decisions to bring them in line with the principles announced on Monday.Lower courts have stayed the implementation of parts of those laws, and they will now revisit those decisions to bring them in line with the principles announced on Monday.
11.50am: Finally the news no one has been waititng for: how Mitt Romney will evade commenting on today's immigration ruling:11.50am: Finally the news no one has been waititng for: how Mitt Romney will evade commenting on today's immigration ruling:
Today's decision underscores the need for a President who will lead on this critical issue and work in a bipartisan fashion to pursue a national immigration strategy....Today's decision underscores the need for a President who will lead on this critical issue and work in a bipartisan fashion to pursue a national immigration strategy....
I believe that each state has the duty – and the right – to secure our borders and preserve the rule of law, particularly when the federal government has failed to meet its responsibilities.I believe that each state has the duty – and the right – to secure our borders and preserve the rule of law, particularly when the federal government has failed to meet its responsibilities.
Note the immediate contradiction right there: a national immigration strategy and each state having the right to its own policy. Classic piece of Rombollocks. And a factual error: states don't have those rights, as the supreme court noted in its opinion, it's one that belongs to the federal government.Note the immediate contradiction right there: a national immigration strategy and each state having the right to its own policy. Classic piece of Rombollocks. And a factual error: states don't have those rights, as the supreme court noted in its opinion, it's one that belongs to the federal government.
The Romney statement doesn't really say if he agrees/disagrees w SCOTUS decision.The Romney statement doesn't really say if he agrees/disagrees w SCOTUS decision.
Also note: no actual policy, other than "wait till I'm president".Also note: no actual policy, other than "wait till I'm president".
As the Huffington Post's Elise Foley points out, Romney's statement fails to even mention either Arizona or SB1070 by name.As the Huffington Post's Elise Foley points out, Romney's statement fails to even mention either Arizona or SB1070 by name.
11.40am: In their dissents on the Arizona ruling, associate justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas would have allowed all the challenged provisions, while Samuel Alito would have allowed state police to arrest undocumented immigrants who looking for work and make arrests without warrants.11.40am: In their dissents on the Arizona ruling, associate justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas would have allowed all the challenged provisions, while Samuel Alito would have allowed state police to arrest undocumented immigrants who looking for work and make arrests without warrants.
The Associated Press reports that Scalia was particularly unhappy:The Associated Press reports that Scalia was particularly unhappy:
Scalia, in comments from the bench, caustically described Obama's recently announced plans to ease deportation rules for some children of illegal immigrants.Scalia, in comments from the bench, caustically described Obama's recently announced plans to ease deportation rules for some children of illegal immigrants.
"The president said at a news conference that the new programme is 'the right thing to do' in light of Congress' failure to pass the administration's proposed revision of the Immigration Act. Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of the Immigration Act that the president declines to enforce boggles the mind," Scalia said."The president said at a news conference that the new programme is 'the right thing to do' in light of Congress' failure to pass the administration's proposed revision of the Immigration Act. Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of the Immigration Act that the president declines to enforce boggles the mind," Scalia said.
And there we were thinking the president and the department of homeland security were part of the federal government. Who knew?And there we were thinking the president and the department of homeland security were part of the federal government. Who knew?
11.30am: One important point being lost in the outpouring of reaction following the Arizona ruling: the effects will be felt in several states – namely Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah – that have similar laws and have legal challenges pending the Arizona result.11.30am: One important point being lost in the outpouring of reaction following the Arizona ruling: the effects will be felt in several states – namely Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah – that have similar laws and have legal challenges pending the Arizona result.
Alabama in particular has a very harsh "papers please" immigration law, which seem wide open to challenge in the wake of the Arizona ruling today.Alabama in particular has a very harsh "papers please" immigration law, which seem wide open to challenge in the wake of the Arizona ruling today.
The ramifications could be felt in several other states that were modelling new immigration legislation on SB1070 – I'm looking for some analysis on the national fallout.The ramifications could be felt in several other states that were modelling new immigration legislation on SB1070 – I'm looking for some analysis on the national fallout.
11.21am: Judd Apatow – director of Knocked Up, producer of Girls, writer of some awful Jim Carrey movies – is unhappy with the supreme court's Montana decision today:11.21am: Judd Apatow – director of Knocked Up, producer of Girls, writer of some awful Jim Carrey movies – is unhappy with the supreme court's Montana decision today:
Our supreme court has been co opted by big money interests.It is tragic for our country.Nothing good comes of billion dollar elections.Our supreme court has been co opted by big money interests.It is tragic for our country.Nothing good comes of billion dollar elections.
Thank you for making that serious point Judd Apatow. We await the supreme court's ruling on the crimes against humanity inflicted by Fun With Dick and Jane.Thank you for making that serious point Judd Apatow. We await the supreme court's ruling on the crimes against humanity inflicted by Fun With Dick and Jane.
11.10am: Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy often comes across as the Hamlet of the supreme court – and fittingly today couldn't decide whether section 2B was not to be.11.10am: Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy often comes across as the Hamlet of the supreme court – and fittingly today couldn't decide whether section 2B was not to be.
11am: Here's the relevant portions of Justice Kennedy's majority decision on the controversial section 2B of SB1070 – and why it wasn't overturned but might yet in the future:11am: Here's the relevant portions of Justice Kennedy's majority decision on the controversial section 2B of SB1070 – and why it wasn't overturned but might yet in the future:
To take one example, a person might be stopped for jaywalking in Tucson and be unable to produce identification. The first sentence of §2(B) instructs officers to make a "reasonable" attempt to verify his immigration status with ICE if there is reasonable suspicion that his presence in the United States is unlawful. The state courts may conclude that, unless the person continues to be suspected of some crime for which he may be detained by state officers, it would not be reasonable to prolong the stop for the immigration inquiry.To take one example, a person might be stopped for jaywalking in Tucson and be unable to produce identification. The first sentence of §2(B) instructs officers to make a "reasonable" attempt to verify his immigration status with ICE if there is reasonable suspicion that his presence in the United States is unlawful. The state courts may conclude that, unless the person continues to be suspected of some crime for which he may be detained by state officers, it would not be reasonable to prolong the stop for the immigration inquiry.
Basically: Arizona law officers can't detain someone arrested or held on a charge because they haven't confirmed their immigration status:Basically: Arizona law officers can't detain someone arrested or held on a charge because they haven't confirmed their immigration status:
However the law is interpreted, if §2(B) only requires state officers to conduct a status check during the course of an authorized, lawful detention or after a detainee has been released, the provision likely would survive pre-emption — at least absent some showing that it has other consequences that are adverse to federal law and its objec­tives.However the law is interpreted, if §2(B) only requires state officers to conduct a status check during the course of an authorized, lawful detention or after a detainee has been released, the provision likely would survive pre-emption — at least absent some showing that it has other consequences that are adverse to federal law and its objec­tives.
10.49am: Jan Brewer, governor of Arizona and a big supporter of the controversial SB1070 immigration law, has put out a statement and is quick to claim victory on the grounds that "the heart" of the law – allowing police to ask for immigration papers – is still in place:10.49am: Jan Brewer, governor of Arizona and a big supporter of the controversial SB1070 immigration law, has put out a statement and is quick to claim victory on the grounds that "the heart" of the law – allowing police to ask for immigration papers – is still in place:
Today's decision by the US supreme court is a victory for the rule of law. 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 SB1070 can now be implemented in accordance with the US constitution.Today's decision by the US supreme court is a victory for the rule of law. 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 SB1070 can now be implemented in accordance with the US constitution.
That's making lemonade, but at least Brewer has some lemons to work with. In fact, the decision asserts the federal government's preeminent role in enforcing immigration law and as such is a big defeat for the Arizona law.That's making lemonade, but at least Brewer has some lemons to work with. In fact, the decision asserts the federal government's preeminent role in enforcing immigration law and as such is a big defeat for the Arizona law.
10.40am: The supreme court's healthcare ruling will now almost certainly be on Thursday when, coincidentally, the heat index will be approaching 100 degrees. Which is fitting.10.40am: The supreme court's healthcare ruling will now almost certainly be on Thursday when, coincidentally, the heat index will be approaching 100 degrees. Which is fitting.
10.34am: The Arizona decision is on balance a win for the Obama administration, in three out of the four challenges to the controversial law.10.34am: The Arizona decision is on balance a win for the Obama administration, in three out of the four challenges to the controversial law.
For Mitt Romney – interestingly, he's in Arizona today, campaigning. And it means that once again he'll perhaps be forced to take a stand on immigration that further alienates Hispanic and Latino voters. Somewhere right now the Romney brains trust is having an Aaron Sorkinesque meeting.For Mitt Romney – interestingly, he's in Arizona today, campaigning. And it means that once again he'll perhaps be forced to take a stand on immigration that further alienates Hispanic and Latino voters. Somewhere right now the Romney brains trust is having an Aaron Sorkinesque meeting.
10.29am: Here's the section of the supreme court ruling on Arizona's controversial "stop and check" law known as Section 2B, from the decision written by Associate Justice Kennedy:10.29am: Here's the section of the supreme court ruling on Arizona's controversial "stop and check" law known as Section 2B, from the decision written by Associate Justice Kennedy:
It is not clear at this stage and on this record that §2(B), in practice, will require state officers to delay the release of detainees for no reason other than to verify their immigration status. This would raise constitutional concerns. And it would disrupt the federal framework to put state officers in the position of holding aliens in custody for possible unlawful presence without federal direction and supervision. But §2(B) could be read to avoid these concerns. If the law only requires state officers to conduct a status check during the course of an authorized, lawful detention or after a detainee has been released, the provision would likely survive preemption — at least absent some showing that it has other consequences that are adverse to federal law and its objectives.It is not clear at this stage and on this record that §2(B), in practice, will require state officers to delay the release of detainees for no reason other than to verify their immigration status. This would raise constitutional concerns. And it would disrupt the federal framework to put state officers in the position of holding aliens in custody for possible unlawful presence without federal direction and supervision. But §2(B) could be read to avoid these concerns. If the law only requires state officers to conduct a status check during the course of an authorized, lawful detention or after a detainee has been released, the provision would likely survive preemption — at least absent some showing that it has other consequences that are adverse to federal law and its objectives.
Without the benefit of a definitive interpretation from the state courts, it would be inappropriate to assume §2(B) will be construed in a way that conflicts with federal law.... This opinion does not foreclose other preemption and constitutional challenges to the law as interpreted and applied after it goes into effect.Without the benefit of a definitive interpretation from the state courts, it would be inappropriate to assume §2(B) will be construed in a way that conflicts with federal law.... This opinion does not foreclose other preemption and constitutional challenges to the law as interpreted and applied after it goes into effect.
So Section 2B stands for now but is still open to legal challenge in the future, depending on how it is enforced. Several other sections of SB1070 have been thrown out.So Section 2B stands for now but is still open to legal challenge in the future, depending on how it is enforced. Several other sections of SB1070 have been thrown out.
10.26am: So the headline on Arizona's SB1070 law is that the supreme court has struck down much of Arizona crackdown on illegal immigrants and reserved those powers to the federal government.10.26am: So the headline on Arizona's SB1070 law is that the supreme court has struck down much of Arizona crackdown on illegal immigrants and reserved those powers to the federal government.
On the issue of Arizona law enforcement demanding papers from suspected illegal immigrants – the most controversial part – the court appears to have allowed it to continue but that it is still open to legal challenge.On the issue of Arizona law enforcement demanding papers from suspected illegal immigrants – the most controversial part – the court appears to have allowed it to continue but that it is still open to legal challenge.
More details as we get them.More details as we get them.
10.23am: Here's the court's decision on Arizona immigration law [pdf] – basically, three key elements have been overturned but the most controversial one, involving police automatic demands for papers from suspected illegal immigrants is left open to challenge.10.23am: Here's the court's decision on Arizona immigration law [pdf] – basically, three key elements have been overturned but the most controversial one, involving police automatic demands for papers from suspected illegal immigrants is left open to challenge.
10.21am: Opinion is still being formed on the Arizona decision but we can assume that since justices Alito, Thomas and Scalia were the three in dissent – it was a 5-3 ruling, with Kagan recusing herself as she was US solicitor general when the government challenged SB1070 – means it was probably good news for the US government and the White House.10.21am: Opinion is still being formed on the Arizona decision but we can assume that since justices Alito, Thomas and Scalia were the three in dissent – it was a 5-3 ruling, with Kagan recusing herself as she was US solicitor general when the government challenged SB1070 – means it was probably good news for the US government and the White House.
10.19am: Just to be clear: we have a decision on the Arizona immigration law – which appears to support the US government position, at least in part – but nothing coming today on the healthcare law.10.19am: Just to be clear: we have a decision on the Arizona immigration law – which appears to support the US government position, at least in part – but nothing coming today on the healthcare law.
So healthcare will be Thursday, we can assume.So healthcare will be Thursday, we can assume.
10.17am: And it's a decision on Arizona's controversial immigration law SB1070 – the decision of the ninth circuit court has been overturned, and a victory for the Obama administration in part.10.17am: And it's a decision on Arizona's controversial immigration law SB1070 – the decision of the ninth circuit court has been overturned, and a victory for the Obama administration in part.
That means: no healthcare ruling today.That means: no healthcare ruling today.
10.10am: Nothing on healthcare or Arizona yet. Here's AP on the Montana decision:10.10am: Nothing on healthcare or Arizona yet. Here's AP on the Montana decision:
The Supreme Court has reaffirmed its two-year-old decision relaxing limits on corporate campaign spending. The justices on Monday reversed a Montana court ruling upholding state restrictions.The Supreme Court has reaffirmed its two-year-old decision relaxing limits on corporate campaign spending. The justices on Monday reversed a Montana court ruling upholding state restrictions.
By a 5-4 vote, the court's conservative justices said the decision in the Citizens United case in 2010 applies to state campaign finance laws and guarantees corporate and labor union interests the right to spend freely to advocate for or against candidates for state and local offices.By a 5-4 vote, the court's conservative justices said the decision in the Citizens United case in 2010 applies to state campaign finance laws and guarantees corporate and labor union interests the right to spend freely to advocate for or against candidates for state and local offices.
The majority turned away pleas from the court's liberal justices to give a full hearing to the case because massive campaign spending since the January 2010 ruling has called into question some of its underpinnings.The majority turned away pleas from the court's liberal justices to give a full hearing to the case because massive campaign spending since the January 2010 ruling has called into question some of its underpinnings.
The 5-4 split was as you'd expect: the "liberal" wing of Breyer, Sotomayor, Ginsburg and Kagan dissenting.The 5-4 split was as you'd expect: the "liberal" wing of Breyer, Sotomayor, Ginsburg and Kagan dissenting.
10.05am: Another interesting decision from the supreme court, which overturns Montana's state ban on corporate campaign contributions – a case known as Citizens United part II. Overturning it – in a 5-4 decision – backs up the previous Citizens United decision.10.05am: Another interesting decision from the supreme court, which overturns Montana's state ban on corporate campaign contributions – a case known as Citizens United part II. Overturning it – in a 5-4 decision – backs up the previous Citizens United decision.
10.03am: The supreme court finds that juveniles (under 18) can't be given sentences of life imprisonment without parole, thanks to the eighth amendment. That's good to know, if not the decision we're looking for.10.03am: The supreme court finds that juveniles (under 18) can't be given sentences of life imprisonment without parole, thanks to the eighth amendment. That's good to know, if not the decision we're looking for.
10.01am: Here we go then. Hold on to your virtual seats. Some details are being released. The court is always very punctual.10.01am: Here we go then. Hold on to your virtual seats. Some details are being released. The court is always very punctual.
9.55am: Five minutes to go. Purely by chance – not – President Obama will be on the campaign trail in New England today, including a visit to Boston, home of RomneyCare.9.55am: Five minutes to go. Purely by chance – not – President Obama will be on the campaign trail in New England today, including a visit to Boston, home of RomneyCare.
9.50am: GQ's Marc Ambinder notes:9.50am: GQ's Marc Ambinder notes:
The WH has exec orders RTG if ACA is struck down. Their content and timing I don’t know. But they’ve got contingency plans a-plenty.The WH has exec orders RTG if ACA is struck down. Their content and timing I don’t know. But they’ve got contingency plans a-plenty.
Both the Romney and Obama campaigns are poised for multiple outcomes. Obama will almost certainly make a public statement whatever happens.Both the Romney and Obama campaigns are poised for multiple outcomes. Obama will almost certainly make a public statement whatever happens.
9.40am: The New York Times summons up the feverish atmosphere in Washington DC as the healthcare ruling looms:9.40am: The New York Times summons up the feverish atmosphere in Washington DC as the healthcare ruling looms:
The impending heath care ruling by the Supreme Court has become this city's OJ Simpson verdict crossed with a papal conclave – polarizing, maddeningly unpredictable and shrouded in mysterious signaling. The ruling is expected to come this week, either shortly after 10am on Monday, the last scheduled day of the term, or on an extra day later in the week.The impending heath care ruling by the Supreme Court has become this city's OJ Simpson verdict crossed with a papal conclave – polarizing, maddeningly unpredictable and shrouded in mysterious signaling. The ruling is expected to come this week, either shortly after 10am on Monday, the last scheduled day of the term, or on an extra day later in the week.
And here's an early contender for the quote of the day:And here's an early contender for the quote of the day:
Scotusblog – the TMZ of the legal world, which the court has not officially recognized – will not be caught unprepared. The site has rewritten its software and moved its popular live blog to a new dedicated server to accommodate the expected traffic, which is already rising fast.Scotusblog – the TMZ of the legal world, which the court has not officially recognized – will not be caught unprepared. The site has rewritten its software and moved its popular live blog to a new dedicated server to accommodate the expected traffic, which is already rising fast.
If you're following this then you should be following Scotusblog here.If you're following this then you should be following Scotusblog here.
9.35am: Here's a summary of the latest news from Ryan Devereaux:9.35am: Here's a summary of the latest news from Ryan Devereaux:
• Anticipation is rising for the Supreme Court's ruling on President Obama's signature health care legislation. The decision is expected to come down this week, either shortly 10am this morning or later this week, probably Thursday. The significance of the ruling – presently known to the nine justices and three dozen others – cannot be understated. As the Associated Press writes: "This is information that could move markets, turn economies and greatly affect this fall's national elections, including the presidential contest between Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney."• Anticipation is rising for the Supreme Court's ruling on President Obama's signature health care legislation. The decision is expected to come down this week, either shortly 10am this morning or later this week, probably Thursday. The significance of the ruling – presently known to the nine justices and three dozen others – cannot be understated. As the Associated Press writes: "This is information that could move markets, turn economies and greatly affect this fall's national elections, including the presidential contest between Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney."
• A new book from Washington Post correspondent Rajiv Chandrasekaran reveals that in 2009, as Obama prepared to send as many as 40,000 troops to Afghanistan, vice president Joe Biden warned him that the military rationale for the plan was flawed. While Biden's misgivings have been widely documented since that time, the book – entitled Little America: The War Within the War for Afghanistan – describes how Biden used a months-long White House review of the war to question the basic premise that the same "counterinsurgency" strategy or COIN that the US embraced in Iraq. The book also details how Obama intentionally sidelined the CIA, declining read a grim CIA assessment of Afghanistan that found little benefit from the 30,000 "surge" forces the president ultimately approved.• A new book from Washington Post correspondent Rajiv Chandrasekaran reveals that in 2009, as Obama prepared to send as many as 40,000 troops to Afghanistan, vice president Joe Biden warned him that the military rationale for the plan was flawed. While Biden's misgivings have been widely documented since that time, the book – entitled Little America: The War Within the War for Afghanistan – describes how Biden used a months-long White House review of the war to question the basic premise that the same "counterinsurgency" strategy or COIN that the US embraced in Iraq. The book also details how Obama intentionally sidelined the CIA, declining read a grim CIA assessment of Afghanistan that found little benefit from the 30,000 "surge" forces the president ultimately approved.
• Former president Jimmy Carter has also called Obama's war-making wisdom into question. In a Sunday op-ed for the New York Times, Carter argued that, as a result of Obama's extensive use of drone strikes and targeted killings, the "United States is abandoning its role as the global champion of human rights." Carter accuses the administration of perpetuating a regrettable slide away from respect for human rights that began in the wake of September 11 and now sees the United States assassinating its own citizens–without charge or trial–in countries where the US isn't even at war. Carter writes, "our country can no longer speak with moral authority on these critical issues."• Former president Jimmy Carter has also called Obama's war-making wisdom into question. In a Sunday op-ed for the New York Times, Carter argued that, as a result of Obama's extensive use of drone strikes and targeted killings, the "United States is abandoning its role as the global champion of human rights." Carter accuses the administration of perpetuating a regrettable slide away from respect for human rights that began in the wake of September 11 and now sees the United States assassinating its own citizens–without charge or trial–in countries where the US isn't even at war. Carter writes, "our country can no longer speak with moral authority on these critical issues."
• Republican congressman Darrell Issa says there is no evidence to suggest White House involvement in a cover-up concerning the ongoing Fast and Furious, DEA gun-running scandal. Last week house speaker John Boehner suggested such a possibility as drama surrounding the scandal intensified and Republicans–with Issa leading the charge–looked to hold attorney general Eric Holder in contempt. On Sunday, however, Issa appeared on Fox News. A clip of Boehner's statement was played and Issa was asked if he had evidence that White House officials had knowingly misled Congress about the case. Issa said no.• Republican congressman Darrell Issa says there is no evidence to suggest White House involvement in a cover-up concerning the ongoing Fast and Furious, DEA gun-running scandal. Last week house speaker John Boehner suggested such a possibility as drama surrounding the scandal intensified and Republicans–with Issa leading the charge–looked to hold attorney general Eric Holder in contempt. On Sunday, however, Issa appeared on Fox News. A clip of Boehner's statement was played and Issa was asked if he had evidence that White House officials had knowingly misled Congress about the case. Issa said no.
• Florida senator Marco Rubio called President Obama's immigration plan – which would spare a portion of young, undocumented immigrants deportation – a "short-term fix to a long-term problem." Appearing on Meet the Press this weekend, the Republican argued the president's plan would fuel illegal immigration. Rubio had been in the process of crafting his own immigration solution, and many Republicans believe Romney could select the Florida senator as his vice presidential running mate.• Florida senator Marco Rubio called President Obama's immigration plan – which would spare a portion of young, undocumented immigrants deportation – a "short-term fix to a long-term problem." Appearing on Meet the Press this weekend, the Republican argued the president's plan would fuel illegal immigration. Rubio had been in the process of crafting his own immigration solution, and many Republicans believe Romney could select the Florida senator as his vice presidential running mate.
9.30am: : Good morning. All eyes are on the US supreme court as it prepares to announces the fate of the Affordable Care Act – the package of healthcare reforms passed by the Obama administration – and the tough anti-immigration measures enacted in Arizona.9.30am: : Good morning. All eyes are on the US supreme court as it prepares to announces the fate of the Affordable Care Act – the package of healthcare reforms passed by the Obama administration – and the tough anti-immigration measures enacted in Arizona.
Decisions on both are expected this week and could come as early as today. The court will announce its decision in 30 minutes time, after 10am.Decisions on both are expected this week and could come as early as today. The court will announce its decision in 30 minutes time, after 10am.
On healthcare, the decision revolves around the constitutionality of the legislation's mandate requiring every US citizen to purchase health insurance, the subject of a three-day hearing held in March.On healthcare, the decision revolves around the constitutionality of the legislation's mandate requiring every US citizen to purchase health insurance, the subject of a three-day hearing held in March.
The Obama administration's healthcare reforms remain a political powder keg, with a recent opinion poll by Rasmussen finding that 52% of US voters want the laws overturned.The Obama administration's healthcare reforms remain a political powder keg, with a recent opinion poll by Rasmussen finding that 52% of US voters want the laws overturned.
Background briefing:Background briefing:
• Read audio excerpts and the court transcript from important points throughout the hearings here.• Read audio excerpts and the court transcript from important points throughout the hearings here.
• The ACA Litigation Blog has links to all the documents, legislation, lower court opinions and amicus briefs from the supreme court hearing.• The ACA Litigation Blog has links to all the documents, legislation, lower court opinions and amicus briefs from the supreme court hearing.
• The New York Times has an interactive graphic to explain the ruling and its consequences.• The New York Times has an interactive graphic to explain the ruling and its consequences.
• A step-by-step graphic from BuzzFeed Politics on the possible options on what happens next.• A step-by-step graphic from BuzzFeed Politics on the possible options on what happens next.
• The Guardian's complete coverage of US healthcare news is here.• The Guardian's complete coverage of US healthcare news is here.