[C19fan]

From what I can tell all the provisions in question got knocked down.

[C19fan]

Section 2b of the law was upheld:
and §2(B) requires officers conducting a stop, detention, or arrest to make efforts, in some circumstances, toverify the person’s immigration status with the Federal Government.
Sections stuck down:

Section 3 makes failure to comply with federal alien-registration requirements a state misdemeanor; §5(C)makes it a misdemeanor for an unauthorized alien to seek or engage in work in the State; §6 authorizes state and local officers to arrest without a warrant a person “the officer has probable cause to believe . . . has committed any public offense that makes the person removable
from the United States”

[bridgemanusa]

Fox news is reporting:

“The provision that was upheld requires state and local police officers, during routine stops, to check the immigration status of anyone they suspect could be in the country illegally.”

That’s still on the positive side.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/25/supreme-court-strikes-down-most-arizona-immigration-law-upholds-key-provision/

[Wyatt's Torch]

From CNN: The Court ruled largely in favor of the U.S. government, striking down three parts of the Arizona immigration law, but the Court did uphold one the most notorious provisions: A requirement that local police officers check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws if "reasonable suspicion" exists that the person is in the United States illegally.

The question now is can that single provision stand on its own, or does the court action mean Arizona has to go back to the drawing board on their immigration law.