Thread: U.S. justices take no action on Obama immigration case

US | Fri Jan 15, 2016 4:40pm EST

U.S. justices take no action on Obama immigration case

WASHINGTON | BY LAWRENCE HURLEY

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday took no immediate action on whether it will hear President Barack Obama's bid to revive his plan to shield more than 4 million immigrants from deportation, a move that bypassed the Republican-led Congress.

The case was not on the list of new cases the court agreed on Friday to take up. The court could make an announcement next week on whether it will hear the immigration dispute. If the justices hear the case it would become one of the centerpiece cases of its current term, which runs until June.

Obama's 2014 executive action, taken after Congress failed to pass bipartisan immigration legislation, was blocked by lower courts after Texas and 25 other Republican-governed states sued to stop it, contending he exceeded his presidential powers under the U.S. Constitution.

The justices must decide whether to take up the administration's appeal of a November ruling by the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that upheld a February 2015 decision by U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen in Brownsville, a city along the Texas border with Mexico, to halt Obama's action.

Obama's executive order lifting the threat of deportation against more than 4 million illegal immigrants was directed at people with no criminal record whose children are U.S. citizens. Those eligible would be able to work legally and receive some federal benefits. States were not required to give any benefits.

With some of his major legislative initiatives stymied by Republican lawmakers, the Democratic president has resorted to executive action to circumvent Congress on issues including immigration, gun control, climate policy and the Obamacare healthcare law.

These steps have antagonized Republicans, who accuse him of unlawfully taking actions by executive fiat that should be the purview of Congress.

Should the justices opt not to hear the case, Obama's program would be effectively dead, with Obama's term in office ending in January 2017.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...-idUSKCN0UT0FG

Lets hope the US Supreme Court has its fingers in the wind and feels the winter of our discontent. If they do, they will kick this back and uphold the lower court ruling of the 5th Circuit.

Originally Posted by Judy

Lets hope the US Supreme Court has its fingers in the wind and feels the winter of our discontent. If they do, they will kick this back and uphold the lower court ruling of the 5th Circuit.

This would be good news.This activism has to end. Just listening to PBS news (I know, I know) and they said Maduro in Venezuela had assumed "decree powers."

http://fuelfix.com/blog/2016/01/15/v...cy/#36898101=0

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) — Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro is using special decree powers to declare an economic emergency in the oil-dependent nation.

The decree giving Maduro 60 days to enact sweeping reform was published Friday in the official gazette just hours before the president is expected to deliver his annual state of the union address.
Expectations for the speech are running high because Maduro for the first time in 17 years of socialist rule will be delivering it to a congress controlled by his opponents.
While Maduro hasn’t said how he’ll use the decree powers granted by the outgoing socialist-run congress he has argued for the need to protect social programs from a collapse in oil prices and what he said is soaring inflation and shortages induced by his opponents.
Categories: Crude oil, Latin America

Supreme Court delays taking up Obama immigration case

Posted Jan 15, 2016, 2:22 pm
Paul IngramTucsonSentinel.com

A lawsuit challenging President Obama’s executive actions on immigration was not among the cases the U.S. Supreme Court said it would hear, leaving in limbo two programs that could shield millions of unauthorized immigrants, including parents of legal residents and U.S. citizens from deportation.

In a private conference Friday morning, the nine justices discussed the lawsuit brought by Texas, along with 25 others states including Arizona, that immediately challenged two deferred action programs announced by President Obama in November 2014.

On Friday afternoon, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it will review eight cases, but did not include the immigration case, despite a push by White House lawyers for the court to review the lawsuit as soon as possible. The court could still agree to "re-list" the case during a conference on January 22, and then the case could be argued as late as April.
During a televised speech, Obama announced he was

expanding the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, and creating a second program — known as DAPA or Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents — that would allow parents to seek their own work permits and protection from deportation.

The program could protect up to 4 million immigrants from deportation, according to estimates from the Migration Policy Institute.

In Arizona, the expansion of the program for childhood arrivals would impact 39,000 people, and the program for parents would affect at least 97,000, or nearly half of the state's total unauthorized population, the group said.

If the judges decide to accept the case, a decision won't be made until June, giving immigration officials only a few months to being accepting applications for the deferred action programs.

However, if the justices demure, an injunction issued last-February by U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen in Texas will remain in place, handing the fate of Obama's executive orders to the winner of November's presidential election.

While Democratic front-runners Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have both said they would shield immigrants from deportation, Republican presidential candidates have fought to establish who will implement the most aggressive immigration policy.

Donald Trump has remained adamant that he will pursue deportations, saying in November that he would build a "deportation force" to remove an estimated 11.2 million people from the United States.

This would include tripling the number of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, increased detentions, and the end of birthright citizenship set by the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Trump has also said that he would build a wall along the 1,900 mile long U.S.-Mexico border, a $5 billion project that Trump said would be paid for by Mexico.

Meanwhile, in January a DACA recipient asked Sen. Ted Cruz if he would consider deportation people like her on his first day as President, and he responded, telling her "violating the law has consequences.

Lawyers for Texas challenged the program arguing that the expansion of deferred action would create a substantial financial burden by requiring the state to spend millions on new drivers licenses for immigrants.

Additionally, the plaintiffs argued that the Obama administration had failed to follow the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs how federal regulations are made and guides public input.

Last November, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans upheld Hanen's findings. In the decision, written by Judge Jerry E. Smith, the court said that Texas had demonstrated "that it would incur significant costs issuing driver’s licenses to DAPA beneficiaries.

Smith also rejected arguments from federal lawyers that employment authorizations would balance out these costs, and criticized the idea of deferred action, saying that it was" much more than non-enforcement: It would affirmatively confer 'lawful presence' and associated benefits on a class of unlawfully present aliens."

However, Judge Carolyn D. King disagreed, writing in her dissent that she was skeptical about the claims from Texas and called the cost "entirely manufactured by the Plaintiffs in this case."

In November, Justice Department lawyers declined a chance to appeal, and instead asked for a faster schedule, pushing the Supreme Court justices to accept the case.

In response, lawyers for the states asked for a wider review, arguing that the White House violated Constitutional law by using discretion in enforcing U.S. immigration law, and flouted the separation of powers by end-running around Congress.

http://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local/...igration-case/

12/29/15

Texas Asks US Supreme Court Not to Review Immigration Case

1/19/16

Supreme Court to hear Obama immigration challenge