It is beyond question that a State may make violation of federal law a violation of state law as well.

It is beyond question that a State may make violation of federal law a violation of state law as well.

Sure... they do it all the time... Murder is just one example.

You would think, but apparently not today.

OK follow up . Under a different administration ,would local laws granting sanctuary status survive constitutional scrutiny based on today's Arizona decision ?

No, according to the ruling federal immigration law trumps state law.

I guess that means all these lefty safe havens for illegals in violation of Federal immigration law are going to provoke a strong condemnation and sanctions as well?

Amazingly ,this is a section of Kennedy's majority opinion. You would think this was part of the dissent :

The pervasiveness of federal regulation does not diminish the importance of immigration policy to the States. Arizona bears many of the consequences of unlawful immigration. Hundreds of thousands of deportable aliens are apprehended in Arizona each year. Unauthorized aliens who remain in the State comprise, by one estimate, almost six percent of the population. And in the State's most populous county, these aliens are reported to be responsible for a disproportionate share of serious crime...

Statistics alone do not capture the full extent of Arizona's concerns. Accounts in the record suggest there is an "epidemic of crime, safety risks, serious property damage, and environmental problems" associated with the influx of illegal migration across private land near the Mexican border. Phoenix is a major city of the United States, yet signs along an interstate highway 30 miles to the south warn the public to stay away. One reads, "DANGER -- PUBLIC WARNING -- TRAVEL NOT RECOMMENDED / Active Drug and Human Smuggling Area / Visitors May Encounter Armed Criminals and Smuggling Vehicles Traveling at High Rates of Speed." The problems posed to the State by illegal immigration must not be underestimated

Then Kennedy went ahead a stripped Arizona of the power to enforce State law that was written specifically to NOT conflict with Federal Law.


No wonder Scalia was full of scorn at the opinion!

The Government complains that state officials might not heed "federal priorities." Indeed they might not, particularly if those priorities include willful blindness or deliberate inattention to the presence of removable aliens in Arizona. The State's whole complaint -- the reason this law was passed and this case has arisen -- is that the citizens of Arizona believe federal priorities are too lax. The State has the sovereign power to protect its borders more rigorously if it wishes, absent any valid federal prohibition. The Executive's policy choice of lax federal enforcement does not constitute such a prohibition

Indeed... the President proved this week that he has no intention of seriously enforcing the law . Now SCOTUS has stripped a sovereign state from enforcing a law that did not conflict with Federal law .

Even Section 2(B) ,which SCOTUS allowed ;came with a warning by the majority . Kennedy wrote 'This opinion does not foreclose other preemption and constitutional challenges to the law as interpreted and applied after it goes into effect'. In other words ,Police officers in Arizona now have no clear guidelines on how to proceed . Enforce the law ,and you can still be sued.
Kennedy went on to write :

However the law is interpreted, if Section 2(B) only requires state officers to conduct a status check during an authorized, lawful detention or after a detainee has been released, the provision likely would survive preemption -- at least absent some showing that it has other consequences that are adverse to federal law and its objectives. What is that supposed to mean ? The officer could be doing an arrest and /or detention lawfully and still be subject to a suit ? I'm sure the legal challenges to Sec 2(b) that Kennedy invited are already being drafted and submitted .

Maybe they should just shoot them and dump the bodies within range of the border. Save costs since the POS POTUS doesn't have any use for the law.