The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Monday this week in the U.S. v. Texas case, a challenge to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) programs announced by President Obama in November 2014. DACA and DAPA would grant “lawful presence” in the United States to some undocumented non-citizens.
“Lawful presence” does not legalize the presence of any otherwise illegal migrant and does not prevent any from being deported at any time the president may choose. It merely reiterates the executive’s discretionary decision not to deport the migrants covered by the order.
To qualify for deferred action, individuals must have continuously resided in the United States since January 1, 2010, register with the government, and pass a criminal background check. The president’s order, if implemented, could grant legal status and work permits to approximately 4 million individuals currently living in the United States illegally.
This case has been working its way up through the courts since early 2015, when 26 states challenged the president’s action. A U.S. district court judge and the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals have ruled against the administration preventing implementation of this immigration policy.
The Obama administration asked the Supreme Court to grant “immediate review,” which the Court did this week. The Supreme Court will decide whether these policies exceed the authority of the executive branch by skirting the immigration laws passed by Congress. The administration’s petition asked the Supreme Court to resolve the following questions:
- Did the states have “standing to sue” the federal government over this issue;
- Was the “deferred action policy not in accordance with law;”
- Was “notice and comment rulemaking” required to put the policy into effect;
- And, whether the president’s action violates the Take Care Clause of the Constitution. Texas has argued that the president was, in effect, not interpreting the law but setting it aside, thus violated his constitutional duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”
States interest in the case has so far been framed at the expense Texas would suffer if it had to issue driver’s licenses to individuals granted some type of quasi-legal status under DAPA and DACA.
It was suggested in the media that the Justices appear to be split 4-4 along ideological lines. It so, the lower court’s decision would stand and the president’s action would be blocked. Ultimately, the Court’s decision may affect the separation of powers between the executive branch and the legislative branches, federalism, and the legal status of millions of individuals. A decision is expected by July 1 this year.
The American Immigration Council and 325 other immigrants rights, civil rights, labor, and service-provider organizations filed an amicus brief in the case.
