The court’s more liberal justices said Obama’s program tells undocumented immigrants who qualify that, “you will not be deported unless we change our minds”, said Justice Elena Kagan.
Advertisement
The status of about four million undocumented immigrants hangs in the balance as the U.S.
If the Supreme Court ruling expected by this summer defeats DAPA, Schommer said, “All the people who gathered their evidence in anticipation of applying, are not going to have anything to apply for”.
The challenge to Obama’s executive action, Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents or DAPA, raises questions about the extent of presidential powers, which the justices concluded does have a limit but needs to be more sharply defined.
He explained that the Court is supposed to work within constraints, in that “it can only uphold or strike down what Congress and state legislatures have already passed”.
Sotomayor retorted, “Those almost 11 million unauthorized aliens are here in the shadows”.
In Los Angeles – roughly 400-thousand people would benefit from Obama’s programs – 1.4 million across the state, according to Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles.
A 4-4 tie vote – possible since the death of Justice Antonin Scalia – would be a defeat for Obama, since it would leave in place a lower court’s ruling to block his program and make it nearly impossible to implement before he leaves office.
In December of previous year, the City of Salt Lake signed onto an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in support of President Obama’s executive actions on immigration.
It’s not that they’re not compassionate, several of them said – in fact, it’s the opposite.
Much of the arguments dealt with the logistics of the president’s power.
“It hurts our economy, it hurts our society, and candidly, it’s mostly because Congress has not done their job”, Mathis says.
One of those challenging the president’s executive action is the House speaker.
The Supreme Court heard arguments today in a lawsuit brought by 26 states that challenges Obama’s immigration actions.
Texas and congressional Republicans who back the state say the phrase is important because it gives the immigrants more rights than federal law allows. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito raised concerns over the fact that the program’s recipients would be “lawfully present”, which, they suggested, would contradict immigration law.
Advertisement
When the court agreed in January to hear the case, it raised the possibility of a broad decision by taking the unusual step of asking the parties to address whether Obama had violated his constitutional obligations to enforce the nation’s laws.
