SCOTUS says that only federal government can traditionally enforce federal law, no matter how burdensome to Arizona; and SCOTUS says that states can’t carry out federal laws.

◼ SCOTUS: Constitutionality of Arizona Immigrant Law - No Quarter

◼ Supreme Court upholds key immigration status check provision of Arizona law - Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion

The Court struck the provisions dealing with state criminal penalties and other provisions which imposed procedural requirements on illegals in the state. Among the provisions the Court struck is the one requiring that a person be detained if the police officer believes the person is removable...

But the Court upheld, for now, the provision requiring a check of immigration status for persons otherwise detained. The Court left open the possibility of additional legal challenges after the law goes into effect. So expect more litigation....

The net-net? The federal government did better than many expected, particularly on section 6. I don’t think many people thought state criminal sanctions and other state requirements would survive.

Section 2(B) remains in effect for now, which politically is a lot more palatable, because the immigration status check only takes place after a lawful detention. But there will be more litigation once the law is put into effect and applied.

Scalia dissented in part, and would have upheld the entire statute as a valid exercise of Arizona’s sovereignty... More at the link.