Friday round-up

By Kiera Flynn
on May 27, 2011 at 5:28 pm

Most coverage of the Court focused on yesterday’s decision in Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting (No. 09-115), in which a divided Court upheld provisions of Arizona’s Legal Arizona Workers Act that impose sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized immigrants and require state employers to use a federal electronic employment verification scheme.  SCOTUSblog’s own Lyle Denniston has details of yesterday’s holding.  In the Los Angeles Times, David Savage also covers the decision, which he characterizes as giving “more states a green light to target those who employ illegal immigrants.” Discussing the decision at NPR, Nina Totenberg notes the argument by businesses that Arizona’s law has effectively put them into a no-win situation:  businesses will be reluctant to hire Latinos, which could subject them to charges of discrimination.

Coverage also centered on what effect the decision might have on challenges to S.B. 1070, the controversial Arizona immigration rule that (among other things) requires police officers to determine the immigration status of arrestees whom they believe might be in the U.S. illegally.  At USA Today, Joan Biskupic suggests that yesterday’s decision “offer[s] no clear signal” of how the Court might rule on the challenge to S.B. 1070.  And in a blog post for the Washington Post, Jennifer Rubin concludes that the decision “suggests Arizona will have a sympathetic majority if the dispute over S.B. 1070 reaches the Supreme Court.” Additional coverage can be found at Bloomberg, the Washington Post, the New York Times, the PBS NewsHour, the Washington Times, Arizona Daily Star, Reuters, Fox News Latino, the Chicago Tribune, the BBC, and the National Law Journal.

Commentators and editorial boards have weighed in on the decision as well.  The editorial board of the Los Angeles Times contends that the Court’s decision “makes sense in principle but not in practice” because the E-Verify system is not “ready for prime time.”  In the Arizona Republic, the editorial board provides what it describes as the “take-away lesson” from the decision:  “Unless Congress enacts meaningful reform, the nation’s immigration policy will be increasingly fragmented and defined by the states.”  And both the Constitutional Law Prof Blog and Andrew Cohen at the Atlantic discuss the disagreement between Justice Breyer and the Chief Justice over the definition of the word “license.”  In the Sonoran Alliance, Arizona state senator Russell Pearce calls the decision a “major victory for Arizona and the American worker.” And at Forbes, Daniel Fisher explores the “glaring contradictions” exposed by the Court’s decision.

Briefly:

Yesterday in Camreta v. Greene, the Court vacated, on mootness grounds, a Ninth Circuit decision holding that school officials and police officers need a warrant or a parent’s permission to interview a child at school about possible abuse.  David Savage of the Los Angeles Times has coverage, as do the Associated Press and Youth Today.  And at Volokh, Orin Kerr analyzes the opinion, which he suggests could “signal a pretty significant shift in standing doctrine.”

At the National Review Online, Ed Whelan explains why yesterday was “not the stereotypical day at the Court”:  in Whiting, “the liberals sided with the Chamber,” while Fowler “generated the unusual situation of Justice Ginsburg’s joining a dissent by Justice Alito.” At PrawfsBlawg, Aaron Bruhl covers both Fowler and Tinklenberg.

At Volokh, Jonathan Adler discusses interesting voting line-ups in Fowler and Camreta.