[Updated at 11:02 a.m. ET CNN] Confused by some of the reaction to the Arizona ruling? Who won? Who lost?
CNN's Senior Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin said despite both sides declaring victory, this is "generally a mixed verdict" and both sides can claim victory.
Essentially, the most controversial part of the law – the "so-called show-me-your-papers provision" - was upheld.
[Updated at 10:58 a.m. ET] Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne said a "facial challenge" – that is, a challenge to the wording of the law - was expected.
Other three provisions that were shot down are minor compared to the "big, controversial one" that is outlined in Section 2B, which empowered Arizona law enforcement officers to determine someone's immigration status.
"We want to be sure there is no racial profiling," he said.
The law was one that attracted a good deal of debate. When the issue was in front of the Supreme Court in April there were plenty of protestors.
[Updated at 10:54 a.m. ET] As we've noted before, the decision in the Arizona case could have wide implications for other states that enacted similar laws, following in Arizona's footsteps. One of those states is Georgia. Attorney General Sam Olens released a statement in reaction to the Arizona ruling.
"My office participated in an amicus brief filed by 16 states in support of Arizona's right to partner with the federal government in enforcing immigration law," said Olens. "I am pleased that the Supreme Court recognizes that states have an important role to play in upholding the law. I look forward to further proceedings in the Eleventh Circuit regarding Georgia's immigration reform law in the light of this decision."
The Supreme Court also agreed today to review a decision by the 9th Circuit that held, for the first time, that forest roads used for timber harvesting must receive time-consuming and expensive permits, a ruling that threatens the continuing viability of timber harvesting across the country.
Attorney General Olens joined a bipartisan group of 25 other states in submitting an amicus brief to the Court urging review. "I am pleased that the Court will review this important case," Olens said. "The 9th Circuit's decision ignores the text and meaning of the statute, and fails to defer appropriately to the EPA's contrary interpretation; even the Obama Administration agrees it was wrong. I hope the Court will reverse it quickly."
[Updated at 10:52 a.m. ET] CNN Political Analyst Gloria Borger added that the upheld portion of the Arizona law could still be challenged in a lower court, and the ruling "limited the authority of what Jan Brewer's police officers can do" because they can stop someone but they cannot hold somebody without contacting federal officials.
[Updated at 10:51 a.m. ET] Justin Cox, a staff attorney with the ACLU Immigrants Rights Project, has released the following statement in response to the Supreme Court ruling on Arizona's immigration law:
"We're obviously still reading the opinion right now, but I think I general it's not everything that we wanted, but it does go a long way towards reinforcing what we've been saying all along, which is immigration is a federal issue and the states have , there's very little that a state can do constitutionally to affect immigration.
They didn't say that they show me your papers provision is legal, they just said that the reasoning and basis that the lower court ruled to keep it preemptive was not adequate.
And the court specifically said that they were not foreclosing future challenges to the show me your paper provision on the basis of civil rights violations or other preemption arguments.
We won on 3 of the 4 things,. On the 4th thing, the bottom line is, the fight continues."
They're allowed to check the papers, but not allowed to arrest them; the court said that the state law cannot give them that power."
[Updated at 10:46 a.m. ET] Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer released a statement regarding the Supreme Court's decision today calling it a "victory for the rule of law."
Her full statement is below:
"Today's decision by the U.S. Supreme Court is a victory for the rule of law. It is also a victory for the 10th Amendment and all Americans who believe in the inherent right and responsibility of states to defend their citizens. After more than two years of legal challenges, the heart of SB 1070 can now be implemented in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.
While we are grateful for this legal victory, today is an opportunity to reflect on our journey and focus upon the true task ahead: the implementation and enforcement of this law in an even-handed manner that lives up to our highest ideals as American citizens. I know the State of Arizona and its law enforcement officers are up to the task. The case for SB 1070 has always been about our support for the rule of law. That means every law, including those against both illegal immigration and racial profiling. Law enforcement will be held accountable should this statute be misused in a fashion that violates an individual's civil rights.
The last two years have been spent in preparation for this ruling. Upon signing SB 1070 in 2010, I issued an Executive Order directing the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board (AZ POST) to develop and provide training to ensure our officers are prepared to enforce this law efficiently, effectively and in a manner consistent with the Constitution. In recent days, in anticipation of this decision, I issued a new Executive Order asking that this training be made available once again to all of Arizona's law enforcement officers. I am confident our officers are prepared to carry out this law responsibly and lawfully. Nothing less is acceptable.
Of course, today's ruling does not mark the end of our journey. It can be expected that legal challenges to SB 1070 and the State of Arizona will continue. Our critics are already preparing new litigation tactics in response to their loss at the Supreme Court, and undoubtedly will allege inequities in the implementation of the law. As I said two years ago on the day I signed SB 1070 into law, ‘We cannot give them that chance. We must use this new tool wisely, and fight for our safety with the honor Arizona deserves.'"
[Updated at 10:45 a.m. ET] David Cole, a constitutional law professor at Georgetown Law Center said he was not surprised that health care issue will be last to be released.
"They may not be political, but they understand drama so they're holding on until the very last day," Cole said.
He conceded, however, that it may not be so much an effort by justices to keep Americans on the edges of their seats as it is a desire to take a few extra days to make sure they're happy with the ultimate decisions.
Cole said the court did not necessarily uphold the provision allowing law enforcement officers to check people's immigration status when they are pulled over for a traffic violation or arrested for a crime.
"All they said was it's too early to tell before it's actually implemented whether it's inconsistent with federal law,' Cole said.
[Updated at 10:40 a.m. ET] The Supreme Court will release Thursday all of its remaining rulings, including one on the constitutionality of the Obama administration's health care law, CNN Supreme Court Producer Bill Mears reports.
[Updated at 10:36 a.m. ET] CNN Chief Political Analyst Gloria Borger weights in:
"On the larger federal question of state vs. government, this is a clear victory for the Obama administration because it stated quite clearly the state can't pursue policies that undermine federal law," she said. "It's clearly under the federal purview."
