by jamilah38 » Tue Jun 26, 2012 12:59 am
I think you've pretty severely misread the case.
All provisions of the law that were considered were thrown out 5-3 (Kagen recused herself, since she worked on the case as solicitor general). The only provision that was challenged but not thrown out was the papers please provision, but that wasn't upheld either. Rather, it was not ripe for consideration because the Court found that it is possible to enforce it without violating the Constitution. They didn't deem that especially likely, nor did they say it was unlikely, but they gave a strict warning about the limits of the application. That provision has not gone into effect yet and the case before the Court was not primarily about it. There are other cases in the lower Courts that have been on hold that deal with this provision more directly. Most likely, those will be dismissed as being premature. Once the provision goes into effect, if it works as expected, it will be challenged and the issue will return to the Court where they will rule on that provision anew.
If you followed the case and listened to the oral arguments, as I did, this is pretty much what was expected. I suppose the solicitor general could have had a bigger win, but that was still a very big win for the Obama Administration today.
I am much more concerned, though, about the summary reversal 5-4 in American Tradition v. Montana.