Correct.
Now, think about this rationally. First, she DID NOT buy the argument of pre-emption. She only granted the injunction against certain provisions that seem to go right up to the line [or just over] that federal law peovides.
Second, this is a preliminary injunction - pending a full hearing. I have not read the ruling - but I have not seen where she has stated that the parts of the law covered in the injunction are unconstitutional. They are [at least] delayed as of now.
Third, this is going all the way to SCOTUS [either way] and it will have the final say. It is just Round One - being pretty much of a draw. Pre-emption NOT upheld, portions of the law "suspended" [at least for now].
Fourth, this is a HUGE election issue. DEM candidates in the Nov. election should be scared [considering 70% approval of the AZ law as is]. People will remember this and vote their emotions. I would not be surprised to see an all GOP congerssional delegation from AZ after November. Other states with immigration issues will be similarly affected.
Ahhhhhhh, THIS makes better sense. Thank you. (I should have read the thing...)
There’s also the chill factor — fear that a bran new voter block could be formed before the Safe Borders mandate has any affect.