The Supreme Court announced Tuesday morning they will hear a challenge to Barack Obama’s unconstitutional executive orders on immigration.
The case could either put a halt to Obama’s dictatorial executive orders or cement a presidency that wields a dangerous amount of executive power.
In November 2014, Obama’s executive order created the “Deferred Action for Parents of Americans,” or DACA. Like most of his orders, Obama claims that Republican stalling and blocking in Congress forced his hand: If they won’t act, he famously said, he will.
Of course, that justification is insanely out of touch with the entire nature of the federal balance of power and circumvents the will of Congress.
Almost immediately, 26 states – led by then-Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott – filed a lawsuit accusing the President of ignoring federal procedures for changing rule and of abusing his power by sidestepping Congress, the New York Times is reporting.
Last February, a federal judge in Texas issued an injunction shutting down the program altogether while the legal case made its way through the courts.
Should the Supreme Court uphold the executive orders, the White House has promised to move quickly to set up the DAPA program, make it permanent and quickly begin enrolling immigrants before his successor takes office next January. If you have the program going, with people in it, they think – it makes it almost impossible for a Republican president to shut it down.
The court is expected to hear arguments in April and render its decision in June.
In their written arguments before the court, the states acknowledged that the president has wide authority over immigration matters, telling the justices that “the executive does have enforcement discretion to forbear from removing aliens on an individual basis.” Their quarrel, they said, was with what they called a blanket grant of “lawful presence” to millions of immigrants, entitling them to various benefits.
In response, Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. told the justices that “lawful presence” is merely what has always followed from the executive branch’s decision not to deport someone for a given period of time.
He added that the consequences of allowing immigrants to be lawfully present were positive. “Without work authorization,” Mr. Verrilli wrote of the people eligible for the program, “they are more likely to work for employers who will hire them illegally, often at below-market wages, thereby hurting American workers and giving unscrupulous employers an unfair advantage.”
About Robert Gehl
Robert Gehl is a college professor in Phoenix, Arizona. He has over 15 years journalism experience, including two Associated Press awards. He lives in Glendale with his wife and two young children.