Will SC judicial activists uphold historic federal domain over immigration?

The central issue is the Obama administration’s contention that Arizona’s police provisions encroached disruptively on federal terrain. “Arizona has adopted its own immigration policy, which focuses solely on maximum enforcement and pays no heed to the multifaceted judgments” (such as declining to separate children from their parents) that immigration law provides for the executive branch to make.  Will the court allow state and municipal assertion of local biases and prejudices to bypass prosecutorial discretion?

Challenges to SB 1070 have successfully blocked implementation thus far and have been upheld as unsuccessful appeals have made their way through the lower courts. Support for the law’s controversial measures has waned in the interim, particularly among business and agricultural interests which have experienced significant economic impact from the acute labor shortages it has created, as their traditional labor force (both legal and illegal) has abandoned work sites in fear of deportation.  Attempts to replace them with American workers willing to endure a variety of strenuous work conditions have been essentially futile.

At stake here is the viability of conservative strategy of attrition through enforcement, which aims to create difficult and risky conditions for illegal immigrants to live and work in the state that will lead them to “self-deport,” (Romney’s plan).  The intent behind the law, as described by D.A. King, who promoted the law in Georgia, is to create “terror” for them.  Opponents of the bill in Georgia, including self-identified conservatives, support maintaining federal domain over immigration law, warning that smaller farms and business would be forced to shut down.          

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/23/us/states-await-supreme-court-hearing-on-arizona-immigration-law.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2