No they didn't - read the decision. They remanded the case because they could not rule in the theoretical on a policy that has not been implemented, and specified ways it COULD be implemented and pass constitutional muster (I suspect that was Roberts' contribution), but that is a LONG way from upholding the law.
I keep hearing that section 2B has been “handed back to the 9th circuit”
But after reading parts of the opinion, I didn’t see that. What I did see in the SCOTUS opinion was that this matter has to be settled at the state court level, after demonstration that it will or will not result in extended detention to perform an immigration check.
IOW - lets give this a try and see how it goes.
Where does it say that this is going back to the 9th circuit?
The court upheld the provision allowing immigration checks and remanded to the 9th circuit NOT for an OK by them but simply for the to see the decision. As was explained to me by an atty it was a courtesy. In effect they were saying to the 9th, “we agree with your position on 3 parts of the law but disagree on the 4th part and here are our reasons for for the disagreement your information”