[Hoodat]

I am reading this and wondering the outcome of the initial case. The beginning of the article leaves the impression that these plaintiffs went straight to the USSC with their case (Do not pass GO, do not collect $200). But further down in the article was this key piece of information:

The Arizona employer sanctions law had been challenged by the Chamber of Commerce business group, the American Civil Liberties Union, immigration groups and others. A federal judge and then a U.S. appeals court upheld the law.

I would surmise that it is highly unlikely that the USSC would overturn this case considering that both the original judge and the appellate court are in agreement regarding the law's constitutionality.

[Star Traveler]

You were saying ...

I would surmise that it is highly unlikely that the USSC would overturn this case considering that both the original judge and the appellate court are in agreement regarding the law's constitutionality.

Then..., if that's the case, all the Supreme Court needed to do was to refuse to take the case ... end of story ... :-)

[Freedom with Responsibility]

I wonder why the USSC would agree to even hear the case if there were not some questions?

[Lmo56]

I would surmise that it is highly unlikely that the USSC would overturn this case considering that both the original judge and the appellate court are in agreement regarding the law's constitutionality.

I'm pretty sure that the law was written in accordance with the provisions of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 regarding punitive sanctions against employing illegals ...

This case is no different than the current AZ immigration law controversy - a state law that mandates the enforcement of a federal law that is already on the books ...

[FoxInSocks]

I would surmise that it is highly unlikely that the USSC would overturn this case considering that both the original judge and the appellate court are in agreement regarding the law's constitutionality.

In the McDonald v. Chicago Second Amendment case that the Supreme Court just issued its ruling on, both the lower court and the appeals court ruled against McDonald.