SurveyUSA asked 500 adults in Florida, in California, and in Kansas for their reactions to the Supreme Court of the United State’s ruling in Arizona v. United States.

• In all three states, there is agreement with the Court’s decision to leave intact the portion of Arizona’s law that allows Arizona police officers to check the immigration status of any person stopped for any reason. Kansans agree with that part of the decision by a 3:1 margin; Floridians by 2:1; Californians by a more narrow 5:4 margin.
• In all three states, there is 5:3 agreement with the Court’s decision to strike down the portion of Arizona’s law that made it a state requirement for illegal immigrants to register with the federal government.
• By 5:4, both Kansas and Florida adults disagree with the Court’s decision to strike down the part of Arizona’s law that made it a state crime for illegal immigrants to work in Arizona. Californians are equally divided on that question.
• Each state is split over the Court’s decision to strike down the part of Arizona’s law that allowed police to arrest any person, without a warrant, if the officer believed the person had committed an offense that could lead to deportation.
• By an 18-point margin, Kansans say states have the right to create immigration laws that preempt federal law. Floridians and Californians split.
• Majorities in each state — between 52% and 55% — say the Supreme Court’s ruling either benefits both major Presidential candidates equally or benefits neither of them. The remainder of Californians and Kansans think the ruling benefits Barack Obama by a 3:1 margin; Floridians also think the ruling benefits Obama, but by a smaller margin.

In a separate SurveyUSA poll conducted in greater San Diego, 50% of those familiar with the Mount Soledad cross controversy disagreed with the Supreme Court’s decision to not hear an appeal in that case; 45% agreed.