So according to this court, the State of Arizona can no longer enforce federal laws against drug trafficking since this would violate the Supremacy Clause and the Commerce Clause? Idiots.
Actually, no. That's not what the Court is saying, at all. In fact, in both the decision and concurring opinion, the Court reaffirms by citing relevant federal statutory law, the role that states and municipalities can and do play in helping to enforce existing federal law.
The Court however, takes issue with the state for passing its own law on immigration enforcement, even if that law fits perfectly within the scope of existing federal law. The state of AZ is, with the passage of the statute, getting into the foreign policy business, or so the Court opines.
I suspect, reading the opinion and knowing the bios of the two judges who found for plaintiffs (it was partially unanimous), that this will be a compelling argument to the Supreme Court. I have a feeling this won't go the way some think it will go. In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a unanimous opinion, depending on who writes the opinion.