| PHOTO: | Supporters of an immigration overhaul gathered in front the Supreme Court building in April. The Obama administration lost a key ruling Thursday on whether the president could defer action against certain immigrants. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais) |
|
| |
|
|
By:
Katie Leslie
|
| Posted:
Jul,05-2016 18:59:57
|
|
| |
|
WASHINGTON ---The Supreme Court dealth a crushing blow to President Barack Obama's immigration program Thursday,splitting, 4-4, over whether it was constitutional for the president to shield millions of people living in the U.S. illegally from deportation.
In a case led by Texas, the one-sentence decision affirms an appeals court ruling that found the president lacked authority to defer deportation action against certain immigrants and issue them temporary work permits.The high court's action also upholds an earlier injunction in the case, which halted the program,s implementation nationwide while the legal case proceeded.
The decision hands a significant victory to Texas and 25 other states that challenged his use of executive actions on immigration.While it sets no national precedent on the use of executive power, the decision effectively blocks the president's 2014 Deferred Action for Parents of Americans program from moving forward for the remainder of Obama's term.
"The action taken by the president was an unauthorized abuse of presidential power that trampled the Constitution," Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, who filed the legal challenge while serving as attorney general, said in an issued statement Thursday. "As the president himself said, he is not a king who can unilaterally change and write immigration laws. Today's ruling is also a victory for all law-abiding Americans--including the millions of immigrants who came to America following the rule of law."
The decision did not outline how the justices split on the case.
At the White House, Obama said the ruling takes the United States "further from the country we aspire to be" and called the decision "heartbreaking" for millions of immigrants and "unfortunate" for the nation.
While the ruling thwarts the administration in some ways, the president offered assurance that it won't trigger round-ups.
"We prioritize criminals. We prioritize gang-bangers. We prioritize folks who have just come in," Obama said. "What we don't do is to prioritize people who have been here a long time who are otherwise law abiding, who have roots and connections in their communities. Those enforcement priorities will continue."
Under DAPA, people living in the U.S. illegally for more than five years, and whose children are U.S. citizens, would be granted temporary deportation relief and may apply for three-year work permits. The president's executive actions also furthered a 2012 policy known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.
Obama blamed the high court's deadlock on Senate Republicans' refusal to fill the Supreme Court seat left vacant by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. And he predicted the ruling would inform the presidential election and the fights for control of Congress in the fall, denouncing Republican "fear mongering" on immigration and taking a shot at presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump.
"Pretending that we can deport 11 million or that we can build a wall without spending billions of dollars...it's factually incorrect. It's not going to work," he said, referring to Trump's proposed border wall.
In what's undoubtedly one of the most high profile cases before the court, Texas argued that Obama usurped the authority of Congress by using executive actions to shape his immigration policies --a fact Texas lawmakers and Congressional Republicans reiterated in their responses to the ruling.
"Today's decision keeps in place what we have maintained from the very start: one person, even a president, cannot unilaterally change the law," Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, whose office argued the case before the court in April, said in a written statement. "This is a major setback to President Obama's attempts to expand executive power, and a victory for those who believe in the separation of powers and the rule of law."
The high court's decision showed that "the president can't circumvent the legislative process simply because he doesn't get what he wants," said Texas Sen. John Cornyn, the Senate's No. 2 Republican and an opponent of the Obama plan.
U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen ruled Obama's orders unconstitutional in February 2015 and issued an injunction in the initial case, a move appealed by the Obama administration.After the5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Hanen's rulingin November, the administration asked for the nation's highest court to consider the matter.
The White House has said the president has the authority because of prosecutorial discretion, which grants the federal government latitude in deciding which cases to prioritize.
The political ramifications of the ruling were clear on the Supreme Court steps Thursday.Members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus vowed to seek revenge at the ballot box in November over what they say is an environment laced with anti-Latino sentiment.
Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill., flanked by bleary-eyed supporters and immigration advocates, directed his ire at both Republicans and the state attorneys general who filed the lawsuit.
"You are always so worried, so focused on the denying the rights of anybody that we advocate for. You are so laser focused on the five million that could have benefited from President Obama's executive order," he said. "Let me tell you what, stop thinking about them. This decision is done. And remember, there are 45 million more coming behind them that are citizens of the United States whose wrath you are going to have to deal with come November."
Congressional Democrats and other immigrant advocates pledged to continue to fight for the program.
"Today's ruling is a setback, but it's not the end of the road for these much-needed programs or for the millions of people eligible for them," said Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-San Antonio, in a written statement. "I am confident that this case will come before the Supreme Court again."
Jose P. Garza, executive director of the Workers Defense Project, said in a statement Thursday that the court's decision "has failed to provide a solution for people living in the shadows. The court's decision means that as many as 5 million immigrants in the U.S. remain in constant fear of being separated from their families at any time, and possibly deported."
The decision's unfinished business ensures that it will be a major topic of the presidential campaign. The next president will ultimately determine the fate of Obama's immigration policies if he or she attempts to resurrect the program or pursue other legislation on the matter.
Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee, was quick to pan the ruling and use it to blast her likely Republican opponent, Trump, who has made curtailing illegal immigration the centerpiece of his campaign.
"Today's decision by the Supreme Court is purely procedural and casts no doubt on the fact that DAPA and DACA are entirely within the president's legal authority," she said. "This decision is also a stark reminder of the harm Donald Trump would do to our families, our communities, and our country."
Trump's campaign pointed to his recent speech warning that Clinton would "go even further than President Obama on open borders....She wants to leave Americans vulnerable to sanctuary cities, while bringing in millions of new low-wage workers to compete against working Americans, including millions of Hispanics and African Americans, for jobs."
Scalia's death in Februaryleft the court with an even ideological balance and thus cast doubt on how the court would rule on this and other high-profile cases.In April, Abbott said a split decision is "the best we can hope for" with a divided court.
The 4-4 split also reignited debate over Obama's stalled nominee to replace Scalia, Judge Merrick Garland. Obama and other Democrats blasted Senate Republicans for refusing to consider Garland, noting that the incomplete bench had created legal uncertainty in the immigration case.
|
|
Source:
|
|
.jpg)
RSS