The Supreme Court struck down key provisions of Arizona’s new immigration law last week, while upholding one controversial section.

The suit and resulting decision have stirred up debate about the role of states in immigration policy and will likely play a large role in the future of Alabama’s own tough law, HB 56.

In a 5-3 decision, the highest court in the country ruled three of the four provisions under review were indeed unconstitutional. The court ruled that those provisions encroached on Congressional power.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the opinion in the case and reaffirmed federal jurisdiction over immigration law.

Kennedy and the majority held that “The federal government’s broad, undoubted power over immigration and alien status rests, in part, on its constitutional power to ‘establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization.’”

The court also refused to rule on the constitutionality of section 2(B) of the Arizona law, also known as the “show me your papers” provision, and yielded to lower courts on the matter. The provision that mandates law enforcement officers check the immigration status of those deemed suspicious of being an alien. Despite concerns of the potential use of racial profiling, the court held that it “would be inappropriate to assume 2(B) will be construed in a way that creates a conflict with federal law.”

HB 56 also has a “show me your papers” provision similar to Arizona’s.

Tomas Lopez of the Southern Poverty Law Center said the court’s decision repudiates much of Alabama’s law, which goes beyond even Arizona’s statute in attempting to intimidate immigrants and interfere with their lives so much that they would leave the state.

“Among the arguments that the Court rejected was Arizona’s contention that its provisions were valid because they merely used the state police power to complement or mirror federal immigration law,” Lopez said. “These arguments are a large piece of Alabama’s case, as well.”

Susan Pace Hamill, a professor at the University of Alabama School of Law, was generally content with the court’s ruling except on the “show me your papers” provision.

“I think it’s unfortunate the Supreme Court gave so little guidance on how such provision can be enforced without conflicting with federal law,” Hamill said. “It is clear the Supreme Court recognizes that provision can be enforced in an unconstitutional manner, thus guaranteeing that more challenges are forthcoming, which means, for our state, the expensive legal battles and distractions from our more pressing problems will continue.”

In Montgomery, the man whose job it is to defend the law in court, Attorney General Luther Strange sounded emboldened by the court’s ruling.

“Today, the Supreme Court acknowledged that state law enforcement can play an important role in assisting the federal government in fulfilling its responsibility to enforce the immigration laws of this country,” Strange wrote in a statement. “Hopefully, today’s decision will spur the federal government to enforce the rule of law in the immigration arena.”

With little fully resolved, the fate of HB 56 now rests in the hands of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court had previously refused to rule on the HB 56 suit until the Supreme Court weighed in on the Arizona law.

With that hurdle now passed, the Eleventh Circuit has asked for supplemental briefings from all the parties involved in the lawsuit, including the Justice Department and numerous human rights organizations.

The Crimson White received a statement from the Attorney General’s office with regards to the process moving forward in defending the law.

“Following the Arizona decision, the Eleventh Circuit has asked for supplemental briefing in Alabama’s own case by July 6, and we anticipate that the supplemental briefing and the 11th Circuit’s decision will answer many of these questions about what the Supreme Court’s decision in the Arizona case means for Alabama’s law,” the statement read. “We do not know when the Court will rule.”

Whoever loses in the Eleventh Circuit will be able to appeal to the Supreme Court, but Cox thinks that’s unlikely and sees the Arizona case as the last immigration-related suit that the court will rule on for the foreseeable future.

“I think the likelihood of the court taking up another case like this is slim,” Cox said.