Supreme Court to review President’s immigration plan

The administration also argued that waiting for a lower court to hold a hearing on the merits “would indefinitely prolong the disruption of federal immigration policy and would continue to deprive millions of parents of US citizens and permanent residents of the opportunity for deferred action and work authorization”. Presidential candidate Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) posted on Twitter, saying that he is confident the Supreme Court will agree that the president’s executive orders are unconstitutional. “They don’t have to wake up in fear every single morning- that they have the legal permits and authority to be here”, Reith said. The order expanded on a 2012 program that provided similar relief for people who became illegal immigrants as children.

“[Tuesday’s] decision by the Supreme Court is exciting news for us because it means we should actually hear something this year”, said Frankie Rodriguez, the senior pastor at El Camino and an accredited immigration representative at Immigration Connection.

The case could have repercussions beyond immigration because it would set a precedent for the circumstances under which states can sue the federal government over a whole range of executive actions. Amparo Medina and her son have been in Sacramento for the last 13 years, trying to live the American dream, all while fearing deportation. He said the case would get a “more serious and less completely partisan” consideration there than it got in the lower courts, which he described as “ultraconservative”. The Supreme Court announced it’d consider the case, the Times reported.

In November, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the states, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court. The top United States court has not scheduled oral arguments in the case, but it is expected to render a decision by mid-June, with the U.S. election season in full swing and less than a month before the Republican and Democratic nominating conventions.

Wilson said she’s hoping the Supreme Court will make the right decision.

The justices said in their order Tuesday that they will also decide whether Obama’s actions violated the constitutional provision requiring the president to “take care that the Laws be faithfully executed”, essentially meaning that they will determine whether current law prohibits Obama from using executive action to enforce broad immigration laws, according to Politico.

The president said he could take all of those actions under the guise of prosecutorial discretion, which gives the administration the power to decide which immigrants it wants to deport.

“There’s no negative action that could happen, simply the lack of positive action”, says Tim Winn, Director of Immigration Legal Services at Catholic Charities Indianapolis. The orders issued by the President in 2015 would protect roughly 5 million people illegally residing in the US from deportation. They note that immigration statute already allows the executive to grant work permits to those who are granted deferred action status; DAPA simply broadens the category of those eligible for this deferred action status.