Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia suggested Monday that the Framers of the Constitution would have “rushed to the exits” if presented with the idea behind President Barack Obama’s recent decision not to enforce certain immigration laws. 
 
 The Supreme Court’s decision to strike down most of the key provisions of Arizona’s SB 1070 immigration law “boggles the mind” in light of the Obama policy shift, Scalia added. 
 
 Text Size - 
 
 + 
 
 reset Brewer on SCOTUS ruling POLITICO breaks down SCOTUS immigration decision” 
 
 (Also on POLITICO: SCOTUS clears key part of Ariz. immigration law) 
 
 Speaking in dissent of most of the court’s rulings on Arizona’s immigration law, Scalia took a clear swipe in his remarks at the Obama administration’s new policy ending deportations of many young adults brought into the country illegally — which was not part of the Arizona case. 
 
 “The president has said that the new program is ‘the right thing to do’ in light of Congress’s failure to pass the administration’s proposed revision of the immigration laws,” Scalia said. “Perhaps it is, though Arizona might not think so.” 
 
 Scalia asked whether states would have entered into the union had the Constitution included a clause enacting immigration laws but stipulating that the president had a choice on whether to enforce them. Delegates would have “rushed to the exits” at Independence Hall. 
 
 By passing a state immigration law, he added, Arizona had “moved to protect its sovereignty — not in contradiction of federal law, but in complete compliance with it.” 
 
 But, “if securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign state.” 
 
 The court upheld a key piece of the Arizona’s law — requiring police to check the immigration status of those they arrest or stop for questioning — but struck down other pieces of the law, arguing the state had stepped into the bounds of federal law. 
 
 “To say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing immigration law that the president declines to enforce boggles the mind,” Scalia said. 
 
 The problem that Arizona faces, Scalia said, is not that scarce resources are being put toward enforcing immigration laws elsewhere and not in that border state, but the Obama administration’s policies. 
 
 “The husbanding of scarce enforcement resources can hardly be the justification for this,” he said of the new Department of Homeland Security directives, “since those resources will be eaten up by the considerable administrative cost of conducting the non-enforcement program, which will require as many as 1.4 million background checks and biennial rulings on requests for dispensation.” ||||| Celebrating the Supreme Court’s ruling on her state’s tough immigration law, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer on Monday boasted that the “heart” of SB 1070 had been “vindicated,” as she also blasted President Barack Obama’s “failed” immigration policy. 
 
 “Today is the day when the key components of our efforts to protect the citizens of Arizona, to take up the fight against illegal immigration in a balanced and constitutional way, has unanimously been vindicated by the highest court in the land,” the Republican governor said in a brief press conference. “The heart of Senate Bill 1070 has been proven to be constitutional. Arizona’s and every other state’s inherent authority to protect and defend its people has been upheld.” 
 
 Text Size - 
 
 + 
 
 reset POLITICO breaks down SCOTUS immigration decision 
 
 Brewer’s remarks came hours after the Supreme Court announced its decision to uphold one of the key provisions of the state’s immigration law, allowing police officers to check the immigration status of any individual who has been stopped for questioning if there is reason to believe that the person is in the country illegally. Three other provisions of the law were struck down. 
 
 In her remarks, Brewer hit Obama and his administration for failing to design a comprehensive immigration policy that tackles illegal immigration head-on. 
 
 “We cannot forget that we are here today because the federal government has failed the American people regarding immigration policy, has failed to protect its citizens, has failed to preserve the rule of law and has failed to secure our borders,” she said. “The failure to secure the border has created issues we now face regarding illegal immigration, and Arizona without question bears the brunt of that failure.” 
 
 The governor, who has come under intense fire since signing the controversial bill into law in 2010, added, “We also cannot forget that President Obama and his party had both houses in Congress for two years and could have secured our borders and fulfilled the promise to fix our broken immigration system. They failed.” 
 
 In an earlier statement reacting to the court’s ruling, Brewer had hailed the highly anticipated decision as a “victory for the rule of law” and a “legal victory” for her state. 
 
 During the press conference, Brewer repeated that she would not tolerate law enforcement officials who engaged in racial profiling — a concern of critics of the “show me your papers” provision. 
 
 “We know the eyes of the world will be upon us, we know the critics will be watching and waiting, hoping for another opportunity to continue their legal assault against our state,” Brewer said. “Civil rights will be protected. Racial profiling will not be tolerated. Senate Bill 1070 is equally committed to upholding the rule of law.” ||||| Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio on Monday accused President Barack Obama of trying to make him the “poster boy” of his state’s controversial immigration law and maintained that he’s “not going to bend to the federal government” in light of the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down parts of the law. 
 
 Asked by Fox News’ Neil Cavuto whether he considered Obama’s statement that “no American should ever live under a cloud of suspicion just because of what they look like” was intended to be a “slap” at Arpaio, the sheriff responded, “Of course it is.” 
 
 Text Size - 
 
 + 
 
 reset Brewer on SCOTUS ruling POLITICO breaks down SCOTUS immigration decision 
 
 “I’m the poster boy. He mentioned me a few months ago at the White House; he didn’t like what I was doing with [S.B.] 1070,” he said. “I’m going to continue to enforce those state laws, regardless of what the federal government is trying to put pressure on me to satisfy all these activists, which by the way are in front of my building right now, three-and-a-half years they’ve been in front of my building. So, I’m not going to bend to the federal government, especially when we still have state laws to enforce.” 
 
 The Supreme Court’s highly anticipated decision ruled against three provisions of SB 1070 while upholding one — widely known as the “show me your papers” measure — that requires police officers to determine the immigration status of an individual who has been stopped for questioning when there’s reasonable suspicion that the person is in the country illegally. 
 
 The Justice Department announced in May that it is suing the Arpaio, who calls himself the “toughest sheriff in America.” On Fox, the Maricopa County sheriff also took a shot at the administration’s immigration policy. 
 
 “If he has that much concern, then stop them from coming into the United States because it’s illegal to come into this country,” he said. “He ought to do something about that situation.” 
 
 Earlier in the day, the sheriff had said that the Supreme Court had protected “a good section” of the state’s immigration law by upholding the controversial “show me your papers” provision of the law. 
 
 “I think this is a good section that’s been upheld,” Arpaio said Arizona’s local TV station KNXV. “I would have liked to see where we would have the authority to arrest illegal aliens just by being here illegally and book them into our jails, but that’s not going to happen. But I think this sends a message that we will be involved in enforcing the illegal alien laws and our police officers will be able to at least try to determine if they’re in this country illegally.” 
 
 Arpaio also pushed back on allegations that he is a proponent of racial profiling, maintaining that he’s simply interested in doing “the right thing.” 
 
 Asked if he expects Immigration and Customs Enforcement to cooperate with the sheriff’s department, Arpaio said this remains to be seen. 
 
 “It’s going to be very interesting to see what the Homeland Security does now, if they will continue to pick up the illegal aliens we come into contact with,” he said. “So we’ll see what happens.” ||||| A judge's ruling blocking major portions of Arizona's immigration law strengthened the Obama administration's hand in a battle over states rights that appears destined for the Supreme Court. 
 
 The ruling from U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton in Phoenix sided with the Justice Department on the most important federal arguments accusing the state of crossing a constitutional line with a law aimed at curbing illegal immigration. 
 
 Several other states are considering similar laws, amid broad anti-immigration sentiment, and the ruling likely will contribute to deterring some of them. Underscoring the political implications of the legal fight, Arizona Republican Gov. Jan Brewer used her gubernatorial-campaign website to vow an appeal of the ruling, and the Republican Governors Association sent out a fund-raising letter from Ms. Brewer seeking donations. 
 
 The Arizona law, which was set to take effect Thursday, required state law enforcement to check the immigration status of people who are stopped for some other reasonable cause and who were suspected of being in the country illegally. 
 
 The judge based her findings on court precedents that support federal pre-emption of state laws found to conflict with or infringe upon federal authority. 
 
 PM Report: Judge Blocks Key Parts of Arizona Law 8:23 A federal judge blocked key sections of Arizona's tough new immigration law, granting the Obama administration's request for an injunction. Laura Meckler discusses. Also, Sarah Nassauer discusses why reality TV shows are being lured by vacation destinations in an effort to generate buzz among travelers. 
 
 The ruling went beyond what even Obama administration officials were expecting after a recent hearing in which the judge appeared skeptical of some federal arguments. Federal officials said U.S. government lawyers were preparing for a ruling that would recognize the federal government had legitimate arguments to offer at a trial but would allow much of the law to take effect in the meantime. 
 
 Instead, the judge ruled that the federal government's lawsuit was likely to succeed on multiple fronts. She ruled that the law was "likely to burden legally-present aliens" and quoted a Supreme Court directive that aliens should be free from "the possibility of inquisitorial practices and police surveillance." 
 
 She also ruled that because federal agencies would be required to complete immigration checks requested by state law-enforcement officials, the state was infringing on federal authority. 
 
 "The number of requests that will emanate from Arizona as a result of determining the status of every arrestee is likely to impermissibly burden federal resources and redirect federal agencies away from the priorities they have established," she wrote. 
 
 View Full Image Associated Press U.S. District Judge Susan R . Bolton Age: 58 
 
 Appointed: July 2000, by President Bill Clinton 
 
 Prior Job: Served 11 years as a Superior Court judge in Maricopa County, Ariz. 
 
 Education: BA, University of Iowa; JD, University of Iowa What the Judge Said About the statute: 
 
 Arizona can't make police officers try to determine the immigration status of people they stop or arrest just because they have reasonable suspicion the person is in the U.S. illegally. 
 
 It also can't require that someone remain in custody until immigration status is verified. 
 
 The state can't criminalize the failure to apply for or carry registration papers, or make it a crime for an undocumented immigrant to apply for or accept a job. It can't authorize a warrantless arrest where there is probable cause to believe someone has committed a deportable offense About its prospects: That 'Arizona would impose a…burden on legal resident aliens that only the federal government has the authority to impose' and that the Obama administration 'is likely to succeed on the merits' of its challenge. 
 
 That preserving the status quo through a preliminary injunction is less harmful than allowing it to be enforced. 
 
 John Eastman, a professor at Chapman University Law School who recently made an unsuccessful bid for the Republican nomination as California attorney general, said the judge "made a number of errors in law" including making a broader ruling than precedents allow. 
 
 "The claim that just simply having your law enforcement enforce federal law is a violation of federal law, that's just ludicrous," Mr. Eastman said. 
 
 The next step in the battle is an appeal of Judge Bolton's preliminary injunction before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which generally carries a liberal reputation. 
 
 The U.S. Supreme Court already is weighing an earlier Arizona law establishing penalties for employers who don't check the immigration status of employees. The Justice Department argues that the earlier law also impinges on federal immigration authority. 
 
 Federal courts have given the federal government wide latitude over immigration laws, dating to 1880s laws aimed at limiting Chinese migrants. But in recent decades, courts have also allowed state laws that rely on federal law for their force. 
 
 Jonathan Benner of Reed Smith LLP said the judge's ruling was "surgical" in carving out areas where he believed the state clearly crossed the line. "She's dealing with an area that's suffused with federal authority," he said. 
 
 "While we understand the frustration of Arizonans with the broken immigration system, a patchwork of state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal immigration enforcement and would ultimately be counterproductive," said Justice Department spokeswoman Hannah August. 
 
 Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox, who had filed a brief in support of the Arizona law, said: "Today's ruling is a slap in the face to citizens who are trying to exercise their sovereignty and protect their borders." 
 
 Write to Evan Perez at evan.perez@wsj.com
– Reactions are flying in to the Supreme Court's decision to strike down much of Arizona's immigration law, but one of the most extreme came from the court itself. Speaking in dissent of the ruling, Antonin Scalia questioned whether Arizona and other states would have even joined the union if they'd known today's ruling was coming, Politico reports. He said the ruling particularly "boggles the mind" in light of Obama's recent executive order on immigration. He said delegates at the constitutional convention would have "rushed to the exits" at the thought of Obama's move. But while Scalia may have been incensed, seemingly every other quarter was declaring victory, or at least partial victory. For example: Jan Brewer called it a "victory for the rule of law," and for the 10th Amendment, because "the heart of SB 1070 can now be implemented," meaning the provision requiring police to check the immigration status of people stopped for other crimes. Joe Arpaio agreed. "I think this is a good section that's been upheld," he said, though he lamented the loss of "the authority to arrest illegal aliens just by being there illegally." President Obama said he was also "pleased" with the decision, which "makes unmistakably clear (that) Congress must act on comprehensive immigration reform," but said he was still "concerned" about the remaining provision, according to CNN. Mitt Romney's statement, meanwhile, was decidedly vague. "Today's decision underscores the need for a president who will lead on this critical issue," he said. "President Obama has failed to provide any leadership on immigration." He said every state has a duty and right to secure its borders, but offered no explicit opinion on the ruling itself.