re: #22 wrenchwench

I read part of the decision and the notes posted on it at WSJ. They make the headline sound stupid. One of the notes, with some emphasis added by me:

The next note:

Or as Kevin Russell says in Charles’s first link:

This is what Jan Brewer is calling ‘a victory’.

In short, they didn’t agree with the law, they just said lower courts were wrong to prevent it from going into practice. They didn’t rule on its constitutionality, leaving the door open for future challenges.