The Supreme Court struck down part of Arizona's controversial immigration law in an opinion released Monday morning. In a 5-3 decision (Justice Elena Kagan recused herself) Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that three out of the four provisions of S.B. 1070 in question unconstitutionally infringed on federal law.

Kennedy, writing on behalf of justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and chief justice John Roberts, struck down provisions that made it a crime (a misdemeanor) to fail to comply with federal alien-registration requirements and for an illegal alien to seek work in the state of Arizona.

The court also struck down the provision permitting an officer to arrest anyone without a warrant who is under suspicion of being an alien who legally qualifies for deportation. These provisions were all deemed to interfere with federal immigration law, which supersedes them.

The Supreme Court upheld one key feature of the Arizona law, section 2(B), which allows the state to verify the immigration status of a person who has been stopped, detained or arrested — the so-called "papers, please" provision.

It was this part of the ruling that allowed Arizona governor Jan Brewer to declare victory, touting that "the heart of SB 1070 can now be implemented in accordance with the U.S. Constitution," in a written statement.

Going three for four is a big win for the Obama administration, especially since most court observers viewed the federal case as weak. Quickly summarizing the ruling, SCOTUSblog noted that "On net, the #SB1070 decision is a significant win for the Obama Administration. It got almost everything it wanted."

Yet while many portrayed the ruling as a split decision, at best, conservative outlets were quick to tout a narrow victory, with the Wall Street Journal declaring "Supreme Court Upholds Key Part of Arizona Law."

What the conservative crowing neglects to mention is that according to Kennedy's opinion, section 2(B)'s legality has a giant, invisible asterisk next to it that essentially adds "for now."

Kennedy writes that there is nothing inherently illegal about state officials working in conjunction with federal officials to determine issues like immigration status — that this is in fact a good thing, not a bad thing. And he notes that as written, the statute specifically states that anyone who produces a driver's license or other, similar identification is presumed to not be an illegal alien and that it must be enforced within guidelines legally allowed under the Arizona and United States Constitution and that it is not to impede on anyone's civil rights.

In other words, the law as written says it will comply with relevant state and federal law, and since the law has not gone into effect (it was immediately blocked pending legal challenge) the court has no reason to assume that enforcement of the law will step outside the proscribed boundaries.

Kennedy references certain potential aspects of section 2(B) that could make it unconstitutional and essentially provides a framework for Arizona and other states who have adopted the S.B. 1070 model to enforce immigration checks without depriving people of their civil rights. Kennedy interprets the law to read that while an immigration status check is required, the law does not demand the check be completed before the person at question is released from custody, and seems to agree that detaining someone for the sole purpose of checking their status would be a violation of federal statutes.

"However the law is interpreted, if §2(B) only requires state officers to conduct a status check during the course of an authorized, lawful detention or after a detainee has been released, the provision likely would survive pre-emption — at least absent some showing that it has other consequences that are adverse to federal law and its objectives," he writes.

But Kennedy also notes "uncertainty" about how the law will be enforced and notes that this opinion does not preempt other constitutional challenges once the law is enacted. That's relevant because the American Civil Liberties Union and other civil rights organizations say they will move forward with their lawsuits challenging the bill. Speaking to the Associated Press, ACLU lawyer Omar Jadwat described the immigration check as "an invitation to racial profiling" even with the Supreme Court's narrow reading.

The Supreme Court didn't deliver a narrow victory for conservatives and supporters of the immigration bill in its ruling on Monday, it merely offered a stay of execution. How long that lasts is yet to be determined.