Thread: Supreme Court to hear Obama immigration challenge

Supreme Court to hear Obama immigration challenge





By Jordan Fabian - 01/19/16 09:45 AM EST
The Supreme Court announced Tuesday it will hear a case challenging President Obama’s executive actions on immigration, which could shield as many as 5 million immigrants from deportations.

Activists expected the court to take up the lawsuit. The programs have been on hold since early last year, when a federal judge in Texas stopped them from taking effect.

A favorable decision for the president would allow the programs to go into place, restoring a key legacy achievement just months before he will leave office. The decision could also have wide-ranging implications for the 2016 election, where immigration has been a pivotal issue.

The Supreme Court will decide the case by the end of its current term, which ends in June, just five months before Election Day. Oral arguments are expected in April.

Immigrant-rights activists cheered the court’s decision.

“We applaud the court’s decision to hear the case and we hope it fully considers the sound legal reasoning behind the president’s administrative relief,” said Ben Monterroso, executive director of Mi Familia Vota

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is leading the 26 states who brought the lawsuit, said the court’s choice shows it “recognizes the importance of the separation of powers.”

“The court should affirm what President Obama said himself on more than 20 occasions: that he cannot universally rewrite congressional laws and circumvent the people’s representatives,” he said in a statement.

At issue are a pair of executive actions launched by Obama shortly after the mid-term elections of 2014.
One, known as Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA), would halt deportations and offer work permits to the parents of U.S. citizens and permanent legal residents. The other would expand Obama's 2012 program — the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) initiative — which provides the same protections to some high-achieving illegal immigrants brought to the country before age 16. The expanded program would simply extend DACA eligibility to a greater number of people.
Texas and 25 other states quickly challenged the legality of the unilateral actions, arguing that they constitute a case of executive overreach that would saddle their budgets with exorbitant new costs.
Last February, U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen, of Brownsville, Texas, found that the states had a legitimate basis to bring their case, blocking the programs from taking effect. The decision was based, in part, on Hanen's ruling that the administration violated the federal law requiring a public comment period when new rules are established.
In November, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled 2-1 in favor of Hanen's injunction, ensuring the programs would remain idle and setting the stage for the Supreme Court to consider the case.
If the justices had declined to do so in the next round of cases, it would have solidified the Fifth Circuit's injunction through the end of Obama's White House tenure.
The Obama administration has argued that the states have no standing to challenge the programs because the federal government alone is charged with establishing immigration policy. The Supreme Court must weigh whether the states have standing based on their argument that deferring deportations will increase illegal immigration, thereby putting undue strain on state resources.
The court’s decision comes at a time when the immigration debate has reached a fever pitch.

The Obama administration is facing backlash from the left for carrying out raids to deport more than 100 migrants who crossed into the U.S. in 2014 as part of a wave of people fleeing violence in Central America.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has rocketed to the top of the polls on a pledge to deport the 11.7 million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. and construct a massive wall along the country’s southern border, for which he claims he would force Mexico to pay.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...tion-challenge

Supreme Court to take up Obama immigration actions

By Ariane de Vogue, CNN Supreme Court Reporter
Updated 11:59 AM ET, Tue January 19, 2016 | Video Source: CNN

(CNN)The Supreme Court announced Tuesday that it will decide the fate of President Barack Obama's immigration actions this term.

The actions are aimed at allowing millions of undocumented immigrants to apply for programs that could make them eligible for work authorization and associated benefits.

The President unveiled the programs over a year ago, but federal courts blocked implementation in response to a challenge brought by Texas and 25 other states. Since then, the nearly 4.3 million immigrants who would have been eligible have been caught in legal limbo.

The Supreme Court — which already has a docket bursting with consequential issues — will likely rule on the case by early summer. If the Court greenlights the programs that are considered a centerpiece of the President's second term, they will go into effect before he leaves office.

RELATED: How Trump's deportation plan failed 62 years ago

The Supreme Court's ruling will come down in the midst of the presidential campaign and will settle an issue that has become a talking point for Republican candidates who say that the President exceeded his authority when he announced the programs.

At issue is the implementation of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) aimed at the approximately 4.3 million undocumented immigrants who are parents of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents, as well as an expansion of the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) targeting teenagers and young adults who were born outside of the U.S. but raised in the country.

The President's actions allow eligible participants to obtain temporary lawful presence and apply for work authorization as well as some associated benefits.

"Millions of families have waited nearly a year for these programs to take effect," said Karen Tumlin of the National Immigration Law Center. "They will now get a full day in court as the nation's highest court hears this case of tremendous moral and legal importance."

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who has been leading the charge in court against the Obama administration, said that the unilateral actions are unconstitutional and that the administration also violated the Administrative Procedures Act, a law that sets forth how federal agencies can establish regulations.

"The Executive does have enforcement discretion to forbear from removing aliens on an individual basis," Paxton argued in court papers, but that does not include "the power to deem unlawful conduct as lawful, or to change an alien's statutory immigration classification."

Nov. 2014: Clinton backs Obama's immigration plan

Paxton said the programs represent one of the "largest changes in immigration policy in our Nation's history" and that the state has the standing to bring the case in part because it will bear the burden and cost of issuing additional driver's licenses.

In a statement out Tuesday, Paxton said that by taking up the case, the Supreme Court "recognizes the importance of the separation of powers."

"As federal courts have already ruled three times, there are limits to the President's authority, and those limits enacted by Congress were exceeded when the President unilaterally sought to grant 'lawful presence' to more than 4 million unauthorized aliens who are in this country unlawfully," he said in a statement. "The Court should affirm what President Obama said himself on more than 20 occasions: that he cannot unilaterally rewrite congressional laws and circumvent the people's representatives."

The Obama administration says that the actions are a valid exercise of prosecutorial discretion and that Texas and the states lack the legal harm, called "standing," to challenge them in Court.

Supreme Court Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli argued in court filings that if the lower court ruling is left undisturbed it will allow the states "to frustrate the federal government's enforcement of the nation's immigration laws."

http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/19/politi...ation-actions/

Supreme Court agrees to review Obama immigration plan

Published January 19, 2016 FoxNews.com

The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to review President Obama’s plan to shield up to 5 million illegal immigrants from deportation, after lower courts blocked the president’s sweeping executive actions from taking effect.

The decision sets up an election-year clash over the controversial plan that many Republicans have likened to “amnesty.”

The justices said Tuesday they will consider undoing lower court rulings that blocked the plan from taking effect. The Obama administration had appealed to the Supreme Court last fall.

The decision to review the case may be welcome on both sides of the aisle. Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch, of Utah, issued a statement praising the court for taking it on – and urging the justices to rule against the administration.

"President Obama’s executive action is an affront to our system of republican self-government,” Hatch said. "The Constitution vests legislative authority in Congress, not the President. With his actions, President Obama has attempted to bypass the constitutionally ordained legislative process and rewrite the law unilaterally.”

The White House voiced confidence their policies would be upheld.

"Like millions of families across this country – immigrants who want to be held accountable, to work on the books, to pay taxes, and to contribute to our society openly and honestly – we are pleased that the Supreme Court has decided to review the immigration case,” spokeswoman Brandi Hoffine said in a statement.

The case probably will be argued in April and decided by late June, about a month before both parties' presidential nominating conventions. The issue of illegal immigration has taken a center-stage role in the Republican primary battle, as Donald Trump calls for a wall between the U.S. and Mexico and candidates spar over who is toughest on the issue.

The immigrants who would benefit from the Obama administration's plan are mainly the parents of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents.

But more than two-dozen mostly Republican-led states challenged Obama’s executive actions after they were rolled out in 2014, and the plan has been tied up in litigation ever since.

Critics say the plan is unconstitutional. Shortly before the administration took the case to the Supreme Court, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the states in early November.

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. later said in a court filing that allowing those rulings to stand would force millions of people "to continue to work off the books, without the option of lawful employment to provide for their families."

At issue is the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans program, which Obama said would allow people who have been in the United States more than five years and who have children who are in the country legally to "come out of the shadows and get right with the law."

Texas is leading 26 states in challenging the immigration plan.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...l?intcmp=hpbt1

https://www.numbersusa.com

SUPREME COURT WILL RULE ON DAPA CASE



UPDATED:
Tue, JAN 19th 2016 @ 11:48 am EST

The Supreme Court announced today that it will hear the case against Pres. Obama’s Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) executive action. DAPA has been put on hold since February 2015 when U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen ordered an injunction on the executive action after Texas and 25 other states filed a lawsuit to stop the amnesty.

The injunction was upheld by the Fifth Circuit Court, which suggested that the executive action would change the status of the illegal aliens. DAPA would provide approximately 5 million illegal aliens access to work permits and social security cards, which would qualify them for other state and federal benefits including welfare, essentially granting them legal status.

Today, in response to the court’s announcement, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a statement: “In deciding to hear this case, the Supreme Court recognizes the importance of the separation of powers. As federal courts have already ruled three times, there are limits to the President’s authority, and those limits enacted by Congress were exceeded when the President unilaterally sought to grant ‘lawful presence’ to more than 4 million unauthorized aliens who are in this country unlawfully. The Court should affirm what President Obama said himself on more than 20 occasions: that he cannot unilaterally rewrite congressional laws and circumvent the people’s representatives.”

Beyond agreeing to hear the case, the Supreme Court directed the parties to argue the following question in their brief: “Whether the Guidance violates the Take Care Clause of the Constitution.” This is the provision that says the President must faithfully execute the laws Congress passes. That suggests that the justices want to investigate whether the President has the power to take these actions.
The Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments on the case in April and deliver a ruling by the end of June. If the court approves the executive action that will give Pres. Obama only seven months to enact the executive action, which can be quickly overturned by the incoming president in 2017. Most of the Republican presidential candidates have pledged to overturn the executive actions while most of the Democratic candidates have said they will continue the executive amnesties.

You can read more on this story at Politico.

https://www.numbersusa.com/news/supr...rule-dapa-case

http://www.alipac.us/f9/what%92s-rea...n-case-327578/

Immigration: Former Ted Cruz Aide Set to Argue at U.S. Supreme Court

Miriam Rozen, Texas Lawyer
January 20, 2016


Scott KellerPhoto by Diego M. Radzinschi/THE NATIONAL LAW JOURNAL.

Only a few weeks after he marked his one-year anniversary as Texas' solicitor general, Scott Keller learned that he is scheduled to appear at the U.S. Supreme Court as Texas' lead lawyer for a fourth time.

Keller, a onetime student and former aide to the U.S. Senator from Texas and Republican presidential hopeful Ted Cruz, will argue for the state in a controversial case in which Texas has taken on the Obama administration's proposed immigration reforms.

The high court agreed to hear arguments in Texas v. USA. In the litigation, the Lone Star and 25 other states filed claims against the Obama administration, objecting to its proposed immigration reforms.

A Texas federal judge, based on the states' claims, blocked the Obama administration from implementing the reforms. Texas and the other states argue that the reforms, which would prevent millions of undocumented immigrants from deportation and allow them to apply for work permits, exceed the president's authority.

In 2015, Keller argued for Texas at the high court three times. In January 2015, his first month on the job, he argued for the state in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities. The state's opponents in that case sought to have federal courts allow for the concept of disparate impact in fair housing discrimination claims. A few months later, Keller represented the state in Walker v. Texas. In that litigation, plaintiffs objected to a Texas agency's decision to bar the Confederate flag from appearing on its specially issued license plates.

On Dec. 8, 2015, Keller argued for Texas in Evenwel v. Abbott. In that case, the justices are considering if a three-judge district court correctly concluded that the one-person, one-vote principle under the Equal Protection Clause allows Texas and other states to use total population, rather than voter population, when apportioning legislative districts.

The high court has yet to rule in the one-person, one-vote case.

With the fair housing case, Keller's first appearance before the high court, Texas did not prevail. The court upheld the concept of disparate impact claims. Its ruling, however, was understood to place new limits on when and how such claims may be brought, so the Texas loss was not unmitigated.

In the license plate case, Keller's second appearance, Texas won a clear-cut 5-4 victory. The opinion in Walker allowed Texas to bar the Confederate plates and rejected claims that the state violated free speech rights.

"It won't be anything Keller does that decides the case," predicted Michael Daniel of Dallas' Daniel & Beshara about the immigration battle.

Daniel, who opposed Keller in the fair housing case, issued that forecast because he believes the nine justices are swayed little by lawyering and not because he harbors any doubts about the Texas solicitor general's capabilities. Instead, Daniel agreed with many other lawyers, whose Keller's skill sets have impressed.

"He got a real grilling and he stood up to it," Daniel recalled about Keller's performance in the fair housing case.

"He was very well prepared. He was in there pitching the whole time. Justice [Antonin] Scalia was really on him," Daniel said.

R. James George agreed. George, a partner at George Brothers Kincaid & Horton in Austin, opposed Keller in the license plates case. "He is a very capable lawyer," George said of Keller.

George, a veteran of high court arguments, expresses little surprise at the short time it has taken for Keller to earn his stripes as Texas' leading lawyer before the nine justices.

"The state has a lot of disputes with the federal government and has for most of my career," George said. Therefore, whoever serves in the role of Texas solicitor general can expect to make many high court appearances, at least two or three per year.

From the beginning of his legal career, Keller has impressed other lawyers as someone who would succeed with an appellate career. Marc Tabolsky, who is a partner in the Houston office of Yetter Coleman where Keller was an associate, recalled: "His huge intellect and potential as lawyer was evident even when he was in law school." Keller's questions and insights both struck Tabolsky as unusually cogent. Keller graduated in 2007 from the University of Texas School of Law, but before doing so he took classes from then-Texas solicitor general Cruz, who taught as an adjunct.

After law school, Keller clerked for U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski, worked in the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Solicitor General and then clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Judge Anthony Kennedy before joining Yetter Coleman.

In 2012, when he won his U.S. Senate seat, Cruz plucked Keller to serve as his chief counsel on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Keller was not available to comment for this story, according to attorney general spokeswoman Katherine Wise.

Keller previously told a reporter: "I was very fortunate to get that dream job of working for a rookie senator who's a principled, committed politician."

Cruz did not return an emailed request to his Senate office for comment about this story.

"He is a Cruz accolade," George said about Keller.
But that doesn't stop George or others from reckoning with both Cruz and Keller's lawyering talents. "Senator Cruz is a first-rate lawyer, even if I'm not sure he is a first-rate politician," said George.

With the immigration case though, George believes the high court, Texas and the Obama administration will together be entering a "quagmire" as they try and sort out how to define how, what and when the executive branch faithfully executes the law. "It's going to be difficult," George said.

http://www.texaslawyer.com/id=120274...#ixzz3xtwPNrCJ

One suggestion I'd make is to try and show the connections Sotomayor has with the pro illegal alien crowd and also Kagan. We need to start a campaign to force Sotomayor and hopefully Kagan into recusal and call upon CJ Roberts to carry it out if they refuse. We all know that is Obama's ace but if we can turn up the heat on those justices at least it would help makes grounds for a forcible removal from the bench by the next President. No Judge that has previously worked for and with LaRaza should be allowed a single word in this case.