States Rights and the Arizona Ruling

In the Wall Street Journal, Evan Perez writes "States Dealt Blow in Battle for Power."

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.

...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.

...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.

That's the ruling in a nutshell - ludicrous.