Four issues were argued and decisions rendered. The most significant and most controversial provision in Arizona’s law was upheld by the unanimous vote of eight of the nine Justices. Judge Kagan recused herself.
The other three provisions of Arizona’s law were struck down on a 5 to 3 divided vote.
Upheld
Arizona police may check the immigration status of an individual stopped on reasonable suspicion of having committed a crime.
Struck down
1. Arizona state law that mirrored existing federal law making it a crime not to complete or carry immigration papers.
2. A provision of Arizona law that made it illegal for an illegal immigrant to apply for or hold a job.
3. A provision of Arizona law allowing police to arrest and detain an illegal alien not yet convicted of a deportable crime. Police must release the individual after telling them to show up later for a hearing.
Justice Scalia wrote the dissent.
Here is the decision.
Here are excerpts from Scalia’s dissent.
Post Script – The case is actually identified as AZ vs. US but I think the United States against Arizona better reflects the reality.
RANDOM THOTS 
Thanks for the compliment. Professional journalists are constrained by rules and protocols. Typically an editor requires 800 to 1200 words for an article and 300 or more for a blog post. If a writer can tell his story in 100 words he has to pad it to get it published. I have no such constraints.
Thanks, Bob, for providing your audience with facts and documents of the ruling. Informing the public in a comprehensive and factual manner is, sadly, in the hands of the lay instead of the “professional” journalists. Your site is one of the best to get the facts into our hands. You beat the socks off any of the so-called professional journalists.
So, while this subject is near and dear to any of us who cherish both our freedom and our security, the real title to this should be something like: “And here, folks, is the full and real story.”
Thanks, Bob.
Ron