You're watching...
FOX News legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano on the court’s ruling on the Arizona immigration law.
Also in this playlist...
Auto-advance: ON
Auto-advance
This transcript is automatically generated
-- big case did come down from the Supreme Court today it was the Arizona.
Immigration law the judge Andrew Napolitano is via -- out one thing that we've reported so far is that in future.
The police will be allowed to ask people who install a traffic violations -- that immigration papers but one else.
Was they get the court ruled.
The the the guts the heart and soul of this Arizona statute and also companion sectors and other states like Alabama which were not strictly speaking before the court this morning.
Is that when the federal government fails or refuses to enforce federal immigration law.
The states may stand in the shoes of the federal government and enforce it themselves.
That was the theory behind the Arizona statute that has been struck down.
That's been struck down -- the Supreme Court has basically said with respect to immigration and I'll tell you -- immigration is unique in a moment.
The states -- -- -- this immigration is unique because the constitution specifically grants to the congress and -- to the federal government.
The power to regulate immigration and the congress by the manner in which it is regulated has preempted the field stated differently.
Has decided that only if the congress can regulate the field of immigration.
Of course we know we have a president and things can rewrite the laws of that congress rights with respect to immigration but that's another issue for another time but basically the court is saying.
Even if you have an immigration problem.
And even at the feds want to enforce the law.
You can't take the place of the Fed's you -- vote them out of office but you can't take the place of them.
You know the constitution is clear only -- the feds can regulate immigration earlier Charles was signed this brings to mind states writes -- that we thought collectively we thought that these court rulings.
-- limiting the federal government's power law.
To regulate the states that your -- as if it's the other way around well with.
With respect to Charles's observation and I cannot disagree I am loathe to disagree with Charles -- -- But but here's -- it's very -- an argument Justice Kennedy makes in the majority opinion.
This section to be.
Two letter -- of this statute.
Which the ninth circuit in joint which -- Supreme Court -- it shouldn't have been -- -- basically says if you stop and arrest somebody for something having nothing to do with immigration.
One of your jobs is to find out.
If they are wanted on a warrant in this state or another state for another offense -- the statute also said you can go one level deeper and find that if -- are a lawful president of the United States.
You can't stop them because you think they're -- lawful resident.
That's when thrown out you can't stop them for an immigration purpose under the pretext of it being something -- that's else that's been thrown out.
But if you have lawful custody over someone for a lawful non immigration arrest.
Yes you could do the research and see if there's an immigration problem as well now.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- Probably this -- -- Someone will be stopped for jaywalking or speeding.
And probably this in Arizona probably this afternoon Arizona police officer we're going to his computer and see no record of this person so I'm going to.
I'm going to retain him to detain him until I can find out if he violated federal immigration law and probably this afternoon this person -- hire a member of your favorite profession.
To challenge the application of this section.
Against that person and probably next year -- be back before the Supreme Court this a victory for attorney general holder.
It is a it is a victory for the Obama administration and profound defeat for governor brewer however well intended you -- believe.
Governor brewer was however.
Intense and intractable.
The illegal immigration problem has been in Arizona.
This is set -- for states trying to enhance the sovereignty.
Of their own borders when the feds won't do -- for them.
I was asking yeah that good in the Knox vs SE IU seven to two ruling in favor of knocks against the unions.
Then we have the ruling on in Arizona where you are allowed to ask people for that immigration papers then we have the ruling in Montana.
What any limits on corporate contributions to financing camera and political campaigns struck down break all of those seem to me to be on the conservative side of the -- Which makes me think that may be when we get the ruling on the mandate the conservatives will win and that mandate is toast and you say.
I don't think there's any way to predict what that Supreme Court is going to do on Thursday on the basis of what came down today but independently of what came down today.
I think the Supreme Court will invalidate the mandate but -- I promise you this will know by this time on Thursday morning.
It definitely I think so yes I happen to believe.
But some members of the court have other commitments the week after next just sort of output just sort of a guest and that may not be around come the fourth of July week.
Judge where are we heard though and they after the you know heard the case that they make that decision a long time ago.
And I know they had the right to change the decision about what that be the case I mean you know what that has already in the can so to speak.
Yes and yes yes they made the decision a long time yes if it's five to four that can change depending upon the wording.
Of the opinion may be necessary for the original -- to give some concessions to the fifth vote.
In order to keep that -- that happens until the ink is dry Charles it could even be happening as we speak.
All right judge you know we talking about a military -- -- budget picture here is say that our story I you're welcome back everybody talks a chief judge that.
-- -- -- -- --
