Supreme Court cases decided 25 June 2012

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Three decisions handed out so far, including Arizona's SB 1070, but Obamacare put off til the 28th.

Arizona v. United States
This is the SB 1070 case for which we already have a thread.

Majority opinion by Kennedy with Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor in support.  Kagan was recused.  Scalia, Thomas, and Alito gave opinions that concurred in part and dissented in part.

Thr district court and the Ninth circuit struck four sections of SB 1070.  The opinion of the court upheld three of the strikes, but overturned the fourth strike.  Scalia and Thomas would have upheld all of SB 1070.  Alito would have struck section 3, but upheld the rest.

Section 2(B) allowing for document checks in certain circumstances was upheld for now, pending how it is implemented.

Section 3 making it a state crime to not comply with federal alien-registration requirements is struck.

Section 5(C) making it a state crime for an illegal alien to seek or engage in work in Arizona is struck.

Section 6 authorizing warrantless detention of suspected illegal aliens is struck.

In general, I prefer Alito's opinion, tho I am uncertain whether I would uphold section 6 since I am uncertain whether its effects are as narrow as Alito posits.

Miller v. Alabama

Kagan wrote the 5-4 decision of the court with Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor joining that struck down mandatory life without parole sentences for juvenile murderers.

Breyer wrote a concurrence that Sotomayor joined expressing that for a court to choose to impose such a sentence, a juvenile must have killed or have intended to kill, not merely been a party to crime during which someone died.

Roberts wrote the primary dissent that Scalia, Thomas, and Alito joined. He denied that there was n Right Amendment question here.

Thomas and Alito both wrote a secondary dissent that Scalia joined.

Like Scalia, I support all three dissents. The court is imposing its own subjective view of what the law should be an usurping to itself the role of the legislative branch. This is most pointedly apparent in Breyer's concurrence.

American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock
Citizens United is upheld per curiam since no one has changed their opinion in the meantime.  Whyte Rayne started a thread for the case.

[muon2]

CNN announced that the Obamacare decision will be released Thursday.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

What's Alito's rationale for upholding 5C but not 3?   Section 6 looks the most problematic to me, since I don't get why a state can't help enforce federal law as long as they respect civil liberties.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

What's Alito's rationale for upholding 5C but not 3?   Section 6 looks the most problematic to me, since I don't get why a state can't help enforce federal law as long as they respect civil liberties.

In the case of section 5C, Alito agreed with Kennedy that Federal law could preempt such a State law, but disagreed that current Federal law actually did preempt State law in this area, interpreting it as being silent on the issue.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

What's Alito's rationale for upholding 5C but not 3?   Section 6 looks the most problematic to me, since I don't get why a state can't help enforce federal law as long as they respect civil liberties.

In the case of section 5C, Alito agreed with Kennedy that Federal law could preempt such a State law, but disagreed that current Federal law actually did preempt State law in this area, interpreting it as being silent on the issue.

And I agree with Alito on that, but I disagree with his opinion on Section 6.

Out of laziness, I'll just copy and paste my quick Facebook comments on the case:

 I think the majority got the case right, with the exception of Section 5(C).  I would agree with Justice Alito on 5(C), but disagree with his dissent on Section 6.  But I'm glad to see that the court unanimously Section 2(B) to be Constitutional.  Whether or not 2(B) may be applied in an unconstitutional manner is not the issue; it is whether the law itself is faulty.  Bad implimentation can be dealt with on an individual basis without striking down the whole section.

[they don't love you like i love you]

For the record if I'm reading this correctly Scalia and Thomas actually did not agree in upholding the entire law, Scalia is the only one who would've upheld the entire law. Thomas would've upheld all of the law except the parts that are preempted by federal law. Alito basically agreed with Thomas but disagreed with which parts are preempted.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

For the record if I'm reading this correctly Scalia and Thomas actually did not agree in upholding the entire law, Scalia is the only one who would've upheld the entire law. Thomas would've upheld all of the law except the parts that are preempted by federal law. Alito basically agreed with Thomas but disagreed with which parts are preempted.

I presume you meant Alito and Thomas, not Scalia and Thomas, but you are slightly mistaken about Thomas. You said "Thomas would've upheld all of the law except the parts that are preempted by federal law."  That's slightly true except that Thomas found that none of SB 1070 was preempted.  Scalia was more expansive in his dissent and defended the ability of the States to establish some degree of immigration law beyond that enacted by the Federal government.  He was also quite scathing of Obama's imperial order implementing a Dream Act Lite by presidential fiat.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I'm kinda at a hybrid between Alito and Kennedy.  I think Alito got everything right except Section 6 (or Kennedy got everything right except section 3).