As tensions rose in Washington over President Obama’s liberal immigration policies, hundreds of protesters surrounded the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday to show their support for progressive action. The president’s plan is to protect over four million undocumented immigrants from threat of deportation, as well as granting them rights to work legally and have access to programs such as Social Security and Medicare.
The Supreme Court remained highly divided on the issue as questions regarding presidential power and immigration policy have both dominated this year’s election. The question is whether or not Obama has the authority to defer deportations of millions of people without congressional approval. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr, the top appellate lawyer defended the President’s authority to take such action, but was soon challenged by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.
Twenty-six states have challenged the action on the basis of executive overreach. Justice Anthony Kennedy was quoted as saying “It’s as if the president is setting the policy and the congress is executing it… That’s just upside down.”
Other more liberal justices stepped in to defend the policy. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued that since there are 11.3 million undocumented aliens in the country and Congress has provided funds for removing only about 4 million, certain priorities must be set. Justice Sonia Sotomayor agreed noting the lack of resources that would be essential if the US were to deport every undocumented alien. “They are here whether we want them or not,” she said.
Texas has been leading the charge of twenty-six states challenging the White House, and questioning executive power. Back in February of 2015 the case was backed by a federal judge, and the policies were blocked from taking effect. Many Republican governors and attorney generals believe the unilateral actions were unconstitutional and violated a federal law that sets parameters for how agencies can establish regulations. Scott A. Keller, Texas’ solicitor general and the lead lawyer on the case, said Mr. Obama’s plan was unprecedented and unlawful.
The case, United States v. Texas, No. 15-674, was heard by an eight-person court making a 4-4 deadlock a real possibility. The evenly split court could mean the programs remain blocked, in that case the issue would be sent back to the district court in Texas.
The other side believes liberal action must be taken to ensure the safety of immigrants living illegally in the U.S. Verrilli is quoted as saying that “deferred action itself reflects nothing more than a judgment that the aliens’ ongoing presence will be tolerated for a period of time, based on enforcement priorities and humanitarian concerns, and work authorization enables them to support themselves while they remain.”
Solicitor General Verrilli also argued on behalf of the Obama administration that the “Constitution reserves exclusive authority to the National Government to make and enforce immigration policy.” He says that if the states are allowed to bring the challenge it would “upend the constitutional design.” Furthermore, Verrilli says that the states don’t have the legal right to be in court because they can’t show the concrete injury that would give them standing.
Immigration is currently one of the biggest cases this term, however, other issues such as abortion, affirmative action, and health care have also been dominating the
platform With the death of Justice Scalia, the Court has had to look at cases heading towards a 5-4 split to see if there is a way to avoid deadlock. A decision in this case will most likely be one of the last rulings of the term, although if the justices are evenly divided we could hear much sooner.
The final day was spent on Capitol Hill attending meetings with congressmen and staffers, urging them to co-sign either H.R. 3713 Sentencing Reform Act and H.R. 759 The Recidivism Risk Reduction Act, or S. 2123 The Sentencing Reforms and Corrections Act.