>>> with the supreme court striking down three of the four provisions in the controversial arizona immigration law this morning, the analysis has officially begun. can the white house claim victory? what happens to similar laws in the rest of the country? what are the broader implications regarding racial profiling and immigration reform and why is governor romney in arizona ? it's monday, june 25th and this is "now." joining me today, one of the men who forever changed the vice presidential nominating process, msnbc political analyst and national affairs editor for "new york" magazine, john heilemann. nbc's chief legal correspondent and co-host of the third hour of "today," savannah guthrie . the other man who forever changed the vice presidential nominating process, msnbc and "times" senior political analyst , mark halpern and heather mcghee of demos. the supreme court upheld a key provision of arizona 's immigration law , saying police can check the status of an immigrant in the country illegal but the rest of the controversial law was struck down. joining us is pete williams . pete, thanks for joining us.
>> you bet. a couple things about this ruling. it's 5-3, justice kegan stayed out of this. it's the court's three liberals and the chief justice, john roberts , to make the fifth vote. you mentioned the part of the law the court upheld. the court struck down three others that would make it a crime in arizona for illegal immigrants to look for work or fail to have the right papers and also struck down a provision of arizona 's tough sb- 1070 law that would have given the police the authority to arrest someone without a warrant if they suspected they had violated immigration laws . a couple things about this. first of all, the court said today that there's no reason now to think that the provision they upheld saying that the police should check the status of anyone they arrest, no reason now to think that presents constitutional challenges but it does leave the door open for someone to come along later and once the law goes into effect and mount a challenge. the second thing that has to be said about it, there are other lawsuits pending now in arizona that have yet to get their way here that raise the question this court didn't address. that is does the law force the police to engage in racial profiling . the supreme court stayed away from that question and said it was not before it but that has yet to come here.
>> i want to ask you in terms of the breakdown of justices and the way they went on this, can we infer anything by the fact that roberts was in line with gisnburg, breyer and sotomayor? could this be seen as a bid to steel himself from criticism that he is too partisan and has been making not just political decisions as a chief justice?
>> i wouldn't read anything into it whatsoever about what the court might do on health care . here is a guess and it's only a guess because we haven't the slightest idea why they do these things. but it is possible that the chief tried to avoid a tie. if this had ended up in a 4-4 tie, because justice kagan wasn't involved. it would have left the lower court ruling in place that left all four of the challenged provisions invalid so perhaps the chief was trying to make sure there wasn't a tie, there was a holding. it may also be that he honestly believes the provision that was upheld today was constitutional or at least now doesn't present a constitutional problem.
>> pete williams , thank you. we will certainly be talking to you later in the week.
>> you bet.
>> our favorite legal eagle, savannah guthrie . obviously this is -- three out of four ain't bad, as they say in baseball or i don't know where they say it. how does the white house look upon this decision?
>> we have not yet received a statement from the white house .
>> look, the part that was most controversial was upheld. three other portions of the law were struck down so the federal government as you said won three out of four but i think the biggest thing to take away from this is really, i think the litigation that will be most impactful is yet to come. the biggest controversy that was caused by this law was the notion that it would lead to racial profiling . well, the justices allowed that provision of the law to stand and that only invites more lawsuits. once it goes into effect, one imagines there will be plaintiffs who say my equal protection rights were violated here and they will file constitutional lawsuits which actually brings me to my second point. what the justices decided today was that the federal government preempts the field in the area of immigration regulation. in other words, because the federal government has regulated here so comprehensively the states basically have no business doing so. that preemption doctrine is not a constitutional issue so therefore, congress could go back and change the laws to enable a state like arizona to pass this exact same law so we may see action in congress as well.
>> what do you think the implications are? we know the justice department has taken action on similar laws in south carolina , utah and alabama, i believe. how do other states read this decision? is it not worth it to get into the heated immigration debate if you're looking at legislation like this?
>> they'll be looking at it very r , very carefully, looking to see if their state laws are capable of being interpreted that they also conflict with the federal law because that's what led to three of the four provisions being struck down. it opens the door to provisions like the most controversial one that allows state officers to conduct immigration status checks on those they lawfully stopped so they know those provisions are right. i actually think maybe it means that states who want to have laws like this then go to congress and say hey, congress, it's up to you, you could actually loosen up the regulations, make clear that the federal government doesn't mind if states regulate the way arizona did and therefore, then try to pass the laws.
>> john and mark, i want to talk to you guys about the political implications of this, specifically, vis a vis the 2012 races. we have a romney statement that just came out. president obama has failed to provide any leadership on immigration . this represents yet another broken promise by this president. i believe that each state has the duty and the right to secure our borders and preserve the rule of law particularly when the federal government has failed to meet its responsibilities. as candidate obama he promised to present an immigration plan during his first year in office but four years later, we're still waiting . we're also still waiting , mark halpern, for mitt romney 's ideas on immigration policy . how wrong -- well, what is this moment for mitt romney ? is it a good moment, a bad moment, is it a wash?
>> it's mostly a wash. i think the shelf life of this in the context of politics is relatively short. the immigration system's broken. it's one of the many issues where i don't think we're going to get a real debate between these candidates. in terms of the politics of it, romney 's statement is trying to do clever things. somebody put on twitter a few minutes ago, that would be me, the rhetoric in this statement is themes romney wants to go to whenever he can. the statement doesn't address the specific provisions and what he liked about the ruling or not. he says obama is weak, partisan, breaks his promises, and obama doesn't respect state rights . i think that's the best he can do is try to talk about those themes rather than address the provisions because the provision that was upheld is a huge hot button issue in the hispanic community as we have been talking about for a week. he needs to find a way to make progress with hispanic voters, engaging on the specifics doesn't help him. i think he will try to get away with this.
>> certainly the president has kept immigration alive with his deportation policy. this certainly is fodder for the news cycle. the fact that there could be further lawsuits, this is going to stay in the ether. john, are you of the opinion he can sort of dance around this through november, that he, being governor romney ?
>> no. well, he can, obviously, dance around it for as long as he wants, but to mark's point, the political imperative for romney is to fix his problem to the extent he can with the hispanic vote. he's in an untenable place to win a national election for where he is with hispanics. the reason i think i take a dimmer view of the politics of this are a wash for romney is if that's his paramount political problem with the hispanic community, nothing he said today or nothing that i can think of that he could say addressing the specific issues here which is what the hispanic community wants to hear from him, will help him solve that problem. to me, every time that immigration is in the news and every time he's forced to say things that are primarily defensive and not things that are about solving the problem, helping his vote share with hispanic voters, is a bad day for mitt romney . you look at that statement, if i'm hispanic in new mexico, colorado, nevada or florida and i see that, i see he didn't say anything. he doesn't say anything about this law which i care about which has effect maybe on my family, people i know. he's dodging the issue. i don't think that helps him because he has an affirmative responsibility or imperative to fix that problem.
>> mitt romney is landing in phoenix, arizona today which is i think of all the curious decisions this campaign has made, it's got to be one of the more curiouser. that's not really a word. heather, when we talk about the white house and sort of i don't think it's a victory lap that they're doing right now, but certainly, if you have to look at the implications vis a vis the president and the base going into november, what do you make of this in terms of helping the president, drumming up enthusiasm. does it have a tangible effect?
>> coming on top of obviously his historic decision to say we are not going to deport children who have been standing up in our classrooms all their lives giving the pledge of allegiance , i think this is sort of a -- two sort of victories in a row because what he's saying is we are not the kind of country that says to our black and brown youth, stop and show your papers. that's not the kind of country we are. we are browning as a country, we are becoming a much more diverse nation, so all of these issues that are really about sort of an underlying racial anxiety about who is american, are ones he has to lead on, ones that propel not just african-americans and latinos to vote for him but also white americans and young people to say we want to be more optimistic about the future of racial discourse in this country, the future of racial relations.
>> savannah, the point was made the folks most affected by sb- 1070 are not actually illegal immigrants but legal immigrants who are here and the idea that they would have to sort of carry their papers around is contrary to what this country was founded upon.
>> this whole discussion has kind of revolved around these values, judgments and what kind of community are we. that is not in this supreme court decision. at the end of the day , this is about an arcane aspect of federal law , the preemption doctrine, not about racial profiling , not about equal protection under the laws in our constitution. maybe one day it will be. that lawsuit might get filed but that's not what it's about today. it's actually about that age-old question of the federal government 's power versus the state's power and i was just saying that as a preview to thursday when we will get the health care decision, where that issue will be teed up in a huge way. again, what are the limits of the federal government 's power, something our framers grappled with.
>> it's a constitutional bonanza.
>> wrapping it up in a bow.
>> we cannot wait for you to fly back in here. savannah guthrie , thank you for