Legal Intern, Manhattan Institute's Center for Legal Policy
In the wake of the oral arguments in Arizona v. United States earlier this year, Ilya Shapiro, senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute and editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review, discussed his views on the case as part of our podcast series. We have invited Shapiro to participate in another podcast now that the case has been decided, this time to gauge his reaction to the decision.
In the podcast, Shapiro analyzes the provisions in the Arizona bill that were being contested and notes that both sides are likely to claim victory in the wake of the decision:
At the end of the day, both sides obviously are going to be spinning this in their favor. Arizona is going to say most of our law is already in place and this most controversial one - the so-called "your papers, please" thing that was demagogued - it's legal, it's constitutional. On the other hand the Administration is going to say we prevailed on three of the four, this is clearly a slap in the face to Arizona and all these other states that are taking the law into their own hands. But it's really a mixed message. [Pre-emption analysis] is very technical ... you have to really look at the technical statutory language of the state law and the federal law.
In summarizing his reaction to the decision, Shapiro emphasized the importance of federal engagement on the issue of immigration:
The broader point here is simply that ... real immigration reform has to come from Congress and from the lawmaking capacity of the federal government. Immigration is a national issue and requires a national solution. States are not capable, practically or legally, in dealing with it.
Yesterday, we featured another post-decision podcast on Arizona v. United States with Adam Freedman, a contributor at Ricochet.com and author of the forthcoming book The Naked Constitution. As the Supreme Court completes its term this Thursday, stay tuned for upcoming analysis and podcasts regarding the Court's decision on the constitutionality of ObamaCare.