From NBC's Pete Williams
Handing a legal victory to groups pushing back against illegal immigration, the Supreme Court today upheld an Arizona law that punishes businesses in the state for hiring workers who are in the country illegally.

Federal law against illegal immigration says the states cannot penalize businesses that hire illegal workers "except through licensing."

So in 2007, Arizona passed a controversial law -- signed by then-Gov. Janet Napolitano  -- that allows the state to take away the business licenses of employers that intentionally hire illegal workers. Led by the US Chamber of Commerce, several business and civil rights groups challenged the law, saying enforcement of the immigation laws is for the federal government.

The Obama administration also sued Arizona over the law. Congress, the groups said, never meant to give the states such latitude over virtually any license to do business.

But today by a 5-3 vote (with Justice Elena Kagan siting this one out), the Supreme Court upheld the Arizona law.

The state is simply imposing the punishments the federal law allows, the court said. In addition, the court pointed out, before a business can lose its license, it must intentionally and repeatedly hire illegal workers.

"Congress did not intend to preserve only state state laws that have no effect" on illegal immigration, said Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote today's opinion.

Today's ruling is a green light for other states considering laws that punish employers for hiring illegal workers. Nine states have already done so.

The court has yet to take up the far more controversial Arizona law that requires police to round up anyone they think is in the state illegally. And this ruling does not foreshadow how the Supreme Court will rule on that one, because Congress specifically opened the door to the kind of state regulation upheld today.

From NBC's Pete Williams
The Supreme Court has rejected a request from the state of Virginia to take up a challenge to the Obama health care law on a fast track.

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli asked the court to let the state bypass the normal federal appeals process and take the case directly to the justices. While the court's rules allow for this, such a rapid review is granted only very rarely. The Justice Department opposed the request to put the case on a fast track.

The court's decision means the issue will continue working its way through the federal appeals courts. Several cases are pending, including challenges to the law from Virginia, Florida, and 25 other states.

They claim that the centerpiece of the law -- requiring virtually all Americans to buy health insurance -- is unconstitutional. Two federal judges, in Virginia and Florida, have agreed with the states.

Three other judges, also in Virginia and in Michigan and Washington, DC, have found the law constitutional.

The cases are moving quickly through the appeals courts. The two Virginia cases will be heard by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals on May 10th. The Michigan case will be heard by the 6th Circuit on June 1st, and the case from Florida, with the challenges from over half the states, will be argued before the 11th Circuit appeals court on June 8th.

*** UPDATE ***  In today's brief one-sentence order rejecting the Virginia request, there's no indication that any justices were recused.

When the issue reaches the Supreme Court, as it is expected to during the term that starts in the fall, it appears that all nine justices will hear it. (Some conservative groups were calling on Elena Kagan to bow out, claiming she was involved in some early calls when she was solicitor general about who in her office should handle the issue.)

*** UPDATE II *** In a staetment, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell said he is "disappointed" that the case will not be expedited.

"The court's refusal to hear this case now will force states and businesses to incur increased costs and expend significant effort to begin preparations necessary to ensure compliance with this law, which ultimately may be ruled unconstitutional," he said.

From NBC's Pete Williams
The United States Supreme Court today took no action on a request from the state of Virginia, which is asking the court to fast-track a challenge to the Obama health care law.

The justices were to have discussed the case last Friday, but today's delay signals that they're not yet ready to say what they'll do about Virginia's request.

The court does not always take immediate action after the justices talk about pending matters in a closed-door conference; cases are sometimes repeatedly placed on the calendar for discussion. The reason may be that one or more of the justices wants to write a dissent to the court's action, or there could be other factors they want to consider.

Virginia's Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli, wants the Supreme Court to let the state bypass the normal federal appeals process and take the case directly to the justices. The court's rules allow for this, but it is something that is granted only very rarely. The Justice Department opposed the request to come to the Supreme Court on a fast track.

Virginia's is one of several challenges to the centerpiece of the law, the requirement that virtually all Americans buy health insurance.

Two federal judges, in Virginia and Florida, have found that provision unconstitutional. Three others, also in Virginia and in Michigan and Washington, DC, have found the law constitutional.

From NBC's Pete Williams
A federal appeals court has upheld a ban on enforcing the most controversial part of Arizona's tough new immigration law.

In its opinion, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals wrote that a district court did not abuse its discretion by enjoining some sections of the law backed by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer.

The court's full opinion can be read here.