Supreme Court ruling on President Obama’s action could impact El Pasoans

His plan would have deferred deportation to more than 4 million undocumented immigrants. 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 USA citizens and permanent residents of the opportunity for deferred action and work authorization”.

The Obama administration counters that there is no requirement that Texas provide licenses at a financial loss and that the state is free to charge the full cost of the license.

“We’ve got a lot of confidence in the legal arguments that we’ll be making before the court”, Earnest said.

However, Tuesday’s announcement by the Supreme Court gave them and around 20,000 other similar families in the Upstate hope.

The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the case in Summer of 2016.

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

The high court agreed to decide the legality of Obama’s unilateral action to shield more than 4 million illegal immigrants from deportation. White House officials said Tuesday that the steps taken by Mr. Obama on immigration were “consistent with the actions taken by presidents of both parties” and expressed optimism that the court would agree.

In November, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the states, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court.

The case is scheduled for April, and a decision should be made at the end of June.

In a statement, Mairele Hincapie, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center, said the Supreme Court “has the opportunity to remedy this grievous legal and moral error”. For example, businessman Donald Trump called illegal immigrants from Mexico rapists and criminals and has vowed to build a wall along the U.S.-Mexican border.

The justices said they would consider whether Obama exceeded his authority under federal law.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said the case hinges on whether – as he believes – Obama overstepped his constitutional limits in ordering the immigration reforms. It would allow them to apply for work permits, provided they were parents of U.S.-born children or legal permanent residents, passed a background check and paid fees.

Ready California, a statewide collaborative working to ensure that the maximum number of eligible Californians benefit from DACA and DAPA, applauds today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to hear Texas v. United States, the lawsuit that challenges the constitutionality of expanded DACA and DAPA. Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, like many in her party, proposes a more humane “pathway to citizenship” for undocumented immigrants.

Obama said he was spurred to act on his own by Congress’ failure to pass comprehensive immigration legislation. “Maybe its immigration coming for mommy or daddy”.