The Arizon immigration law was upheld in part and struck down in part. The headlines at the WSJ and NY Times:
Supreme Court Upholds Key Part of Arizona Law [since revised to "Supreme Court Allows Immigration Checks"]
Supreme Court Upholds Key Part of Arizona Law [since revised at the NY Times to "Supreme Court Rejects Part of Arizona Immigration Law"; see below]
Let's stay with the WSJ:
The Supreme Court upheld a key part of Arizona's tough-immigration law but struck down others as intrusions on federal sovereignty, in a ruling that gave both sides something to cheer in advance of November elections where immigration is a major issue.
The court backed a section of the Arizona state law that calls for police to check the immigration status of people they stop.
That section was one of four at issue before the high court. The others make it a crime for immigrants without work permits to seek employment, make it a crime for immigrants to fail to carry registration documents, and authorize the police to arrest any immigrant they believe has committed a deportable offense. Those other three provisions were struck down.
TWO PAPERS IN ONE!
The Times has something for everyone. On the home page, they tell us that "Justices Upholds Key Part of Arizona Law". The linked article has a revised headline:
Supreme Court Rejects Part of Arizona Immigration Law
Here is the home page alternative:
And over at Memorandum, they commemorate the original Times version by John Cushman:
No big deal, but sometimes it is fun to watch the sausage factory.