Everything you need to know about ranked-choice voting in one spot. Click to learn more!

SCOTUS to hear challenge to Obama's immigration executive actions

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
See also: Major cases of the Supreme Court October 2015 term and
President Obama's Immigration Accountability Executive Actions


Supreme Court of the United States
United States v. Texas
Docket number: 15-674
Court: United States Supreme Court
Court membership
Chief Justice
John G. Roberts
Associate Justices
Anthony Kennedy • Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Steven G. Breyer
Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan

April 15, 2016

By Kelly Coyle

On Monday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in United States v. Texas, a case challenging President Obama's Immigration Accountability Executive Actions. Before the justices consider whether the immigration executive actions are lawful and whether the Obama administration violated the Administrative Procedures Act by adopting new immigration policies without allowing the public to review and comment on them, they will have to decide if the states have standing to challenge the actions.

On November 20, 2014, President Obama announced executive actions that offered individuals residing in the country illegally the opportunity to avoid deportation if they met certain criteria. He said, "Now here’s the thing: we expect people who live in this country to play by the rules. We expect that those who cut the line will not be unfairly rewarded. So we’re going to offer the following deal: If you’ve been in America for more than five years; if you have children who are American citizens or legal residents; if you register, pass a criminal background check, and you’re willing to pay your fair share of taxes – you’ll be able to apply to stay in this country temporarily, without fear of deportation. You can come out of the shadows and get right with the law."[1]

His actions proposed improving legal immigration processes, strengthening border security, deporting felons, expanding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, and creating the Deferred Action for Parents of U.S. Citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) program. DACA has not been expanded and DAPA has not been implemented because Texas and 25 other states challenged the legality of the executive actions. On February 16, 2015, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen issued a preliminary injunction to block DAPA and the expansion of DACA.[2] After multiple appeals by the Obama administration, the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in New Orleans said on November 9, 2015, that President Obama could not implement his immigration executive actions in a 2-1 ruling.[3] The administration then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case, and the court granted cert on January 19, 2016.[4]

Calling the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit's decision to block the implementation of DAPA "unprecedented" and "in violation of established limits on the judicial power," the petition for writ of certiorari submitted by the United States government argues that "the court erroneously permitted any State to create Article III standing to challenge a federal policy, based on the State’s voluntary decision to provide a state subsidy to the aliens that policy would benefit." In addition, the government argues that the court erred by stating that the immigration executive actions "are subject to the APA’s [Administrative Procedures Act] notice-and-comment requirements."[5]

The brief in opposition written on behalf of Texas and the states argues that the Obama administration is ignoring Congress' process for allowing immigrants to enter the country legally and noted that the proposed immigration programs are "a crucial change in the Nation’s immigration law and policy." In addition, the respondents argue that the administration did not use "conventional notice-and-comment procedures" before asserting the power to go forward with DAPA. The brief states, "The President himself described DAPA as 'an action to change the law.' ... There is no statutory or constitutional authority for such a change; and at a minimum, it had to be promulgated with notice-and-comment procedure." The respondents also argue that the implementation of DAPA "will directly impose substantial costs associated with issuing additional driver’s licenses; it will also require additional healthcare, law enforcement, and education expenditures."[6]

Questions presented:
  • 1. "Whether a State that voluntarily provides a subsidy to all aliens with deferred action has Article III standing and a justiciable cause of action under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 500 et seq., to challenge the Guidance because it will lead to more aliens having deferred action."
  • 2. "Whether the Guidance is arbitrary and capricious or otherwise not in accordance with law."
  • 3. "Whether the Guidance was subject to the APA's notice-and-comment procedures."

The court also directed the parties to address the following question:

  • "Whether the guidance violates the take care clause of the Constitution, Art. II, §3."[7]

According to SCOTUSblog’s Lyle Denniston, "The core task before the Court, in answering all but the first question, will be to examine what existing law dictates about deportation, and then compare that to the terms of the Obama programs — especially the 2014 program. But underlying that exercise are two fundamental structural questions about American government: when does the executive branch have the option of choosing how it applies a law passed by Congress, without violating Congress’s basic power to legislate, and when does Congress have the authority to take away that discretion, without intruding on executive authority?"[8]

The death of Justice Antonin Scalia creates the possibility that the court will issue a 4-4 decision in the case. If that happens, the ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit will stand, and DACA and DAPA will not be implemented.

DAPA and DACA have already received significant attention on the campaign trail, with Republican presidential candidates Donald Trump and Ted Cruz vowing to end the programs and Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders promising to expand them. John Kasich's position on DACA and DAPA is unclear. Although Ohio joined the lawsuit against the executive actions, Kasich's spokesman Rob Nichols said it was Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine's decision to join, not Kasich's.[9] Kasich has avoided directly addressing DACA and DAPA, but he has said, "If they're law-abiding and they register, I think they [individuals living in the U.S. illegally] ought to be able to stay. They may have to pay a penalty. … You don't ditch the line … and if you do, you don't get rewarded for it."[9] A decision will likely come down in June and be a central focus in the general election.

See also

External links

Footnotes

  1. ↑ PBS, "Watch Obama’s full immigration speech," accessed February 2, 2016
  2. ↑ The Hill, "Judge blocks Obama order on immigration," accessed February 7, 2016
  3. ↑ The New York Times, "Appeals Court Deals Blow to Obama’s Immigration Plans," accessed February 7, 2016
  4. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "Order List," accessed February 7, 2016
  5. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "U.S. v Texas: Petition for a Writ of Certiorari," accessed February 1, 2016
  6. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "U.S. v. Texas: Brief in Opposition," accessed February 1, 2016
  7. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "United States v. Texas," accessed January 27, 2016
  8. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "The immigration case, made simple," accessed February 6, 2016
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 Cincinnati.com, "Iowans pepper John Kasich with immigration Qs," accessed April 7, 2016


Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=SCOTUS_to_hear_challenge_to_Obama%27s_immigration_executive_actions&oldid=7709646"