Presidential candidates weighed in on the Supreme Court’s decision Tuesday to review President Barack Obama’s executive actions on immigration.
Advertisement
The high court added a separate question on whether the president’s guidance violates a provision of U.S. Constitution that requires the president to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed”. Democratic front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton has pledged to go further than Obama to protect large groups of immigrants from deportation.
Several politicians, including Vermont Sen.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office said that by deciding to hear the case, the Supreme Court “recognized the importance of the separation of powers” and noted that lower courts had already ruled three times in favor of the Texas-led, 26-state coalition that brought the suit.
The battle pits the president against Congress and Republican governors, who are bringing the legal challenge.
Most of the major Republican candidates have pledged to recind Obama’s executive action. Clearly the best form of action is for Congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform to put undocumented people on a path toward citizenship.
“Regardless”, he continued, “as president I will end them”.
White House officials said they were pleased by the courts decision to hear their case, and they expressed optimism that the justices would eventually clear the way for the presidents actions to be carried out.
The wildcard justice, appointed in 1988 by President Ronald Reagan, has taken over the pivotal role of tiebreaker following Sandra Day O’Connor’s retirement, often siding with conservative-tilting colleagues. “If this can’t be a priority for the court in making a good decision…this won’t have a good impact on my kids or me”, she said.
“I will be leading a brief to the Supreme Court explaining how the Fifth Circuit’s ruling undermines common-sense immigration policy and threatens the Executive Branch’s ability to work”.
In November of 2014, Obama bypassed Congress in ordering the creation of DAPA, or Deferred Action for Parents of Americans, a program meant to allow millions of people now considered undocumented immigrants to apply for both protection from deportation and permission to work legally in the United States.
Underscoring the political dimension, the case will be argued in April and decided by late June, about a month before both political parties gather for their nominating conventions. Because of the litigation, DAPA (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans) and expanded DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) have been on hold since their inception.
The president’s November 2014 order allowed undocumented immigrants who are the parents of USA citizens or lawful permanent residents to avoid deportation and get work permits.
Advertisement
Texas asserts, and the appeals court agreed, that it would be injured because it would have to spend millions of dollars to provide drivers’ licenses for immigrants with temporary legal status as a result of the federal program.
