Blocking Parts of Arizona Law, Justices Allow Its Centerpiece

NEW YORK TIMES (Article by Adam Liptak and John H. Cushman Jr.):  WASHINGTON The Supreme Court on Monday delivered a split decision on Arizonas tough 2010 immigration law, upholding its most controversial provision but blocking the implementation of others.

The court unanimously sustained the laws centerpiece, the one critics have called its show me your papers provision. It requires state law enforcement officials to determine the immigration status of anyone they stop or arrest if there is reason to suspect that the individual might be an illegal immigrant.

The justices parted ways on three other provisions. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for five members of the court, said the federal governments broad powers in setting immigration policy meant that other parts of the state law could not be enforced.

The national government has significant power to regulate immigration, Justice Kennedy wrote. With power comes responsibility, and the sound exercise of national power over immigration depends on the nations meeting its responsibility to base its laws on a political will informed by searching, thoughtful, rational civic discourse.

Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the state may not pursue policies that undermine federal law, Justice Kennedy added.

The decision was a partial victory for the Obama administration, which had sued to block several parts of the law.

In a statement released later on Monday, President Obama said that he was "pleased" with the Court's decision to strike down some aspects of the law, but he voiced his concern about the remaining provision.

"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," Mr. Obama said. "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."

Monday's ruling was a partial rebuke for state officials who had argued that they were entitled to supplement federal efforts to address illegal immigration.

The administrations legal arguments were based on asserted conflicts between the state law and federal immigration laws and policies. The question for the justices, then, was whether federal immigration law trumped pre-empted, in the legal jargon the state efforts.