Thread: DACA DAPA Supreme Court Case Arguments

Administration to Supreme Court: Crossing Off Words Fixes Amnesty Case

FAIR.US 4/26/16

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on April 18 in U.S. v. Texas, the most important case the Court will decide this year.

The issue before the Court is whether to allow President Obama to implement the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) and expanded Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) amnesty programs. DAPA and expanded DACA, which would unilaterally grant work authorization and legal presence to 4.7 million illegal aliens, has been on hold since Judge Andrew Hanen temporarily blocked it with a preliminary injunction in February 2015.

Based on the questions posed to the parties, the Justices currently seem inclined to rule 4 to 4. Because the Fifth Circuit ruled to uphold Judge Hanen's injunction, a tie would leave the injunction in place. Ties at the Supreme Court leave the lower court ruling in place, but do not set precedent.

The Court's decision seems likely to hinge on two main arguments: 1) do Texas and the other 25 states that joined the lawsuit have "standing" to sue; and 2) does unilaterally granting DAPA and expanded DACA aliens "lawful presence" in the United States go beyond the President's role of executing the law?

In order for the Supreme Court to move forward with the case, the Justices must determine that at least one of the states have suffered direct harm from the administration's actions, a concept known as "standing." The lower courts found that Texas has standing because it would suffer financial damages since its state laws require that it provide driver's licenses — which are subsidized by the state — to all lawfully present aliens in the state.

The DAPA program, by granting "lawful presence" to a significant number of illegal aliens located in Texas, would therefore cause a spike in numbers of people eligible for Texas driver's licenses. The Texas treasury would have no choice but to directly bear the costs of these extra licenses, a direct and non-speculative harm that, Texas argued, satisfies the standing requirement.

Last Monday, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli (representing the administration), attempted to convince the Justices that no injury really resulted, because Texas is not truly forced into providing subsidized licenses.

The standing arguments advanced by Verrillli were shot down by Chief Justice John Roberts, as well as Justices Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito. Chief Justice Roberts said that Verrilli's argument was putting Texas in "a real catch-22."

Justice Roberts highlighted the fact that if Texas was injured it has standing but if it changed the law and did not confer licenses to avoid the injury the administration would sue. It was also noted that, even if the administration does not sue Texas, DAPA eligible illegal aliens may well do so. When asked about what he thought about the chances of success for such a suit, and even whether the administration would sue itself, Verrilli was evasive.

The standing arguments seemed to have a more sympathetic audience with Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and Stephen Breyer, however. For instance, Justice Breyer suggested that perhaps mere "financial" harm was not sufficient to provide standing at all.

Although only the injunction is subject to this appeal, the Justices questioned both sides about whether the DAPA and expanded DACA programs are lawful. On this question, several Justices seemed fairly inclined to rule that the answer was no. For instance, Justice Kennedy suggested that the DAPA program was "backwards" as "the President is setting the policy and the Congress is executing it."

And Justice Roberts said that it must have been difficult for the administration to argue that the illegal aliens are "lawfully present and yet they are present in violation of the law." Verrilli argued that "lawfully present" means that the aliens are "tolerated."

Justice Alito followed up saying, how is it "possible to lawfully work in the United States without lawfully being in the United States?"

Verrilli's response to these questions was remarkable. Indeed, the Solicitor General argued that the administration is not "trying to change anybody's legal status on immigration" and that the administration would be willing to cross out the words "lawfully present."

The administration's claim that "lawfully present" has no meaning — a claim raised for the first time at these arguments — borders on the absurd. The granting of lawful presence was intentionally done by the Obama administration because DAPA and expanded DACA (as forms of deferred action) make illegal aliens eligible to work in the United States as well as get benefits like Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare, and Unemployment.

Justice Alito noted that DAPA and extended DACA is more than just putting the aliens "in a low-priority prosecution status" because the aliens could sue on discrimination if an employer didn't hire the aliens because the employer believed that they were not lawfully authorized to work. It gives the aliens a "legal right they did not have before."

Scott Keller, Texas Solicitor General, argued that DAPA and extended DACA were an unprecedented "assertion of executive power" which was not statutorily granted. He argued that Congress affirmatively acted in 1996 to put "forward those barriers to work and to benefits to deter unlawful immigration."

Keller stated that even if the administration struck out the phrase "lawful presence" it would not cure the defect because the administration is "affirmatively granting a status."

Finally, Attorney Erin Murphy argued eloquently on behalf of the U.S. House of Representatives which filed an amicus brief supporting the states. Her main point was that President Obama had gone to Congress to ask it to pass legislation "to authorize most of the people that are living in this country unlawfully to stay, work and receive benefits."

Congress declined to act and now the "Executive comes before this court with the extraordinary claim that it has the power to achieve the same." Murphy argued that the administration is far "outside the notion of mere enforcement discretion."

She articulated that if it was the administration's only intent to tell this group of aliens that they weren't going to deport them, they could have simply done that with an enforcement priorities memo. However, she argued the administration's goal was to accomplish something more: "not only are you not an enforcement priority, but we want you to be eligible to work and receive benefits" by converting the alien's status.

The Justices will now deliberate behind closed doors for the next few months. A ruling is expected in late June.

http://www.fairus.org/legislative-up...te-4-26-2016#3

So subsidized tuition for DACA recipients costs the states nothing? So Medicaid coverage costs the states nothing? Providing free school lunches costs the states nothing? Increased drivers on the roadways cost the states nothing? Increased emergency room visits, and extra health clinics cost the states nothing?Administering civil rights procedures (I see a lot of those in my state by illegal aliens) I have a hard time believing that ONLY drivers licenses would be an increased expense to the states under these programs.

The lower courts found that Texas has standing because it would suffer financial damages since its state laws require that it provide driver's licenses — which are subsidized by the state — to all lawfully present aliens in the state.

Is that all the lower court found or is that all TX filed for? Maybe it opens the door to all grievances and the "wording" & results of these programs. The other expenses caused by DACA & DAPA should have been challenged too. While some costs are federal, states are greatly robbed by forced to school & other costs.

Amazing how so far in the few statements revealed, the judges favoring illegals are not recognizing that illegals and O are breaking the law. They are not there for anything other than ruling on law - not, well it might hurt the economy if they can't stay etc.

She articulated that if it was the administration's only intent to tell this group of aliens that they weren't going to deport them, they could have simply done that with an enforcement priorities memo. However, she argued the administration's goal was to accomplish something more: "not only are you not an enforcement priority, but we want you to be eligible to work and receive benefits" by converting the alien's status.

aka amnesty on the sly thru more law breaking & overreach

What about the costs of illegals in our jails and prisons? The extra guards, heath care, food and overcrowding in those jails and prisons. How about the cost of Legal citizens car insurance in these sanctuary cities with high accident rates? What about the costs and pain and suffering from US citizens who have lost loved ones to illegal alien trespassers and have BROKEN up our families?

What about the costs to the neighborhoods whose property values have declined because they stuff 20 people into one single family home? The graffiti, the trash, the noise and 10 cars in the driveways? Property values which decline = less money to the local schools and service. What about the costs of the diseases illegals bring into our country and infect other children in our schools? What about the costs of the extra cars on the road, water usage, garbage and social services. The list is long!

What about the costs of all our States paying for the crime, deportation costs, detention and now babysitting the children they dump over our border!

No amnesty, no anchor baby, no refugees, no illegal migrants! No freebies...cut off all Federal Funding to sanctuary cities and shut down sanctuary churches aiding and abetting illegals! Turn them right back around at the border.