US top court agrees to review Obama’s immigration action

One program is the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) which is aimed at the almost 4.3 million undocumented immigrants who have children who are legal permanent residents or us citizens.

Republicans blasted the president’s action as “lawless”, and a coalition of 26 states led by Texas challenged the executive action in court, contending that the president had exceeded his authority. A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, in New Orleans, ruled 2-1 in November to uphold the injunction.

That earlier program, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, is not being challenged and has resulted in more than 720,000 young immigrants being granted permission to live and work in the United States.

“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 chose to review the immigration case”, White House spokeswoman Brandi Hoffine said. “I am very optimistic that what the president has done is lawful, constitutional, and it follows many many precedents that other presidents and chief executives of the United States have already taken”.

Her top rival, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, said he was “confident the president has the legal authority” for the order.

“The court of appeals’ judgment enjoins nationwide a federal policy of great importance to federal law enforcement, to many states, and to millions of families with longstanding and close connections with this country”, U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli argued in the appeal. There have been more than 600,000 people who have successfully applied for this program.

President Obama’s executive actions would provide them work permits and temporary legal status.

If the justices eventually side with the administration, that would leave roughly seven months in Obama’s presidency to implement his plans.

“What (Obama’s) doing is not changing the law, but making a choice about priorities in terms of how we should use our immigration resources”, explained Neumann-Ortiz.

Many conservatives expressed their opposition to the executive orders, and embraced the case as an opportunity to strike down the immigration policies.

The high court added a separate question on whether the president’s action violated a provision of the U.S. Constitution that requires the president to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed”. On that point, at least, the court agreed, and it now appears that the case will be argued in April and decided by the end of June. “(The president’s) providing protection from deportation for five millions people.

The Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) policy aimed to protect certain non-criminal undocumented immigrants from deportation for a limited period.

The future of immigration has been hanging in the balance since the state of Texas challenged Obama’s executive actions following the 2014 midterm elections.

The case is Sissel v. Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 15-543.

The president has said he took the step after years of frustration with Republicans in Congress who had repeatedly refused to support bipartisan Senate legislation to update immigration laws.