Scotus Header for US Texas

U.S. v. Texas Resources

SCOTUS Takes Away Obama’s Pen: Executive Amnesty Injunction Upheld

The Supreme Court dealt a major setback to President Obama’s executive amnesty agenda when it split 4-4 in U.S. v. Texas. The tied vote in the 26 state lawsuit challenging Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) and the expansion of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) means the Fifth Circuit’s injunction stays in place while the case returns to Judge Hanen to be litigated on the merits. Accordingly, the President is prohibited from issuing work authorization to the estimated 5 million illegal aliens who would qualify for DAPA and expanded DACA. As is custom in the rare instance of a split vote, the high court does not include an analysis with the verdict. The entire verdict merely says, “The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.” Last Thursday’s ruling now marks the fifth time the Obama administration has lost in court defending DAPA and expanded DACA: twice before Judge Hanen, twice before the Fifth Circuit, and now before the Supreme Court. read more in today’s legislative update

RELATED...

The Decision: 4–4 Split Vote

ANALYSIS EXCERPTED FROM THE APRIL 12, 2016 FAIR LEGISLATIVE UPDATE

In the event of a tie vote, the lower court's decision stands. Under this scenario, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in favor of the states will be upheld. Last November, the Fifth Circuit kept in place Judge Hanen's injunction blocking the implementation of Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) and expanded Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). FAIR LEGISLATIVE UPDATE, NOVEMBER 17, 2015

With the injunction still in place, the case will return to Judge Hanen for the parties to litigate the merits of whether President Obama has the authority to unilaterally grant executive amnesty. After Judge Hanen rules on the merits, the case will assuredly be appealed to the Fifth Circuit by the losing party and then appealed again to the Supreme Court. In total, the litigation is expected to last several years before it returns to the Supreme Court and, by that time, Justice Scalia's vacant seat will be filled.

However, there are other notable implications for a 4-4 vote. A tie vote means there is no Supreme Court precedent. Additionally, the SCOTUS is unlikely to provide an analysis when it rules on the appeal later this year and instead offer a simple statement affirming the lower court's holding. This is notable because when the high court accepted the case, it specifically asked the parties to brief and argue whether DAPA and expanded DACA "violates the Take Care Clause of the Constitution, Art. II, §3." FAIR LEGISLATIVE UPDATE, JANUARY 19, 2016

  • Statement by the Federation for American Immigration Reform Regarding Decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Case of U.S. v. Texas read the press release

  • Obama Admits He Won't Deport Illegal Aliens read the blog post

Background

In 2014, President Obama used executive action to grant a de facto amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. Through DAPA and expansion of the DACA program, up to 5 million illegal aliens could not only be protected from deportation, but also be authorized to live and work in the United States, and become eiligible for state-managed public benefits. In response to the president’s unconstitutional actions, 26 states across the country filed a lawsuit in order to prevent these amnesty plans from being executed.

In 2015, a district court judge sided with the state plaintiffs and issued an injunction that blocked the implementation of the executive amnesty; a decision that was later upheld by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Get up to speed with United States v. Texas: A Primer.

What's at Stake?

Get the facts in this new video from FAIR.

FAIR President Dan Stein on the most important case the Supreme Court will decide this year.

When the Supreme Court decides the U.S. v. Texas case, what is at stake is nothing less than the entire premise of more than a century of immigration policy: Namely, the legitimacy of laws that restrict immigration in order to protect the social, economic, and security interests of the American people. read the full article

Recommended Reading from the FAIR Legislative Update