“In a split decision, the Supreme Court on Monday upheld one part of a tough Arizona immigration law, but struck down other sections,” msnbc.com’s Tom Curry wrote yesterday.
But as msnbc.com’s Michael O’Brien wrote, both sides saw what they wanted to see in the ruling: “Each party found something to like and dislike in the Supreme Court's opinion, which struck down most components of the Arizona law but left in place one of its most controversial provisions: the requirement that authorities check the immigration status of anyone they detain who's reasonably suspected of being in the United States illegally. President Obama said he was "pleased" the court had struck down key provisions of the law, while his likely Republican opponent, Mitt Romney, suggested the decision represented a rebuke of the president.”
USA Today: “The Supreme Court's split ruling Monday on Arizona's controversial immigration law did nothing to settle the debate — providing little clarity on how far states can go to police their borders and solidifying the topic as a key election-year issue.”
Politico’s Gerstein puts Chief Justice John Roberts in the spotlight: “Roberts pledged during his Supreme Court hearings to be a mere umpire of the law. But as a legacy-defining decision nears, Roberts is emerging as the court’s most intriguing player. … While much of the early attention focused on swing-vote Justice Anthony Kennedy, many court watchers predict Roberts will be the architect of the ruling. To a great extent, the decision will shape the way history views Roberts’s stewardship of the high court.”