Supreme Court to hear potential landmark immigration case
The United States Supreme Court said on Tuesday it would hear a dispute between President Barack Obama and 26 states over the President’s ability to issue sweeping executive orders about immigration.
The Justices considered the case during a private conference last Friday morning.
The 26 states had hoped the Supreme Court would rule on several issues, including the ability of the states to sue the Obama administration; the alleged constitutional overreach of the executive branch in forming immigration policies conflicting with laws passed by Congress; and the alleged unwillingness of President Obama to honor the Constitution’s “Take Care Clause” to execute laws passed by Congress.
According to the order as announced, the Justices will consider two of the three questions: on standing and the Take Care clause.
On Thursday afternoon, the Justice Department waived its last document filing before the private conference, in an attempt to get the case heard and decided by late June.
Two lower courts that ruled on the case agreed that the state of Texas had standing to sue the Obama administration because it had been potentially injured by the decision, which could defer the deportation of 5 million undocumented immigrants. But the lower courts didn’t rule on the two other constitutional questions.
In November 2015, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s injunction that blocked President Obama’s executive orders on immigration from taking effect. In the case, United States v. Texas, the three judge panel ruled 2-1 against the Obama administration’s efforts to establish one new federal immigration program and expand others.
The orders seek to expand the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA), which gave prosecutorial discretion regarding the enforcement of immigration laws against “certain young people.” The orders would make millions more eligible for the program. A November 2014 executive action also established the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans program (DAPA), which allows the parents of U.S. citizens to remain “lawfully present” in the United States. The District Court determined that at least 4.3 million individuals would be eligible for lawful presence under DAPA.
Shortly after the announcement of these programs, Texas, along with 26 other states, sued the federal government with the goal of stopping the programs from being implemented. A district court determined that Texas had standing to sue because of the financial hardship it would suffer by having to issue driver’s licenses to DAPA beneficiaries.
The lower court did not rule on the constitutional and separation of powers claims made against the President’s actions, but rather granted an injunction, which prohibited the programs from taking effect until further notice. The Federal government appealed, arguing that states can’t sue and that the injunction is “improper as a matter of law”. It claimed that Texas would not be harmed by issuing drivers licenses under DAPA, for any costs would be offset by other benefits to the state.
Recent Historical Stories on Constitution Daily
Constitution Check: Are the states’ “Blaine Amendments” on shaky ground?
