|
 The court, with four conservative justices and four liberals,
seemed divided along ideological lines during 90 minutes of
arguments in the case brought by 26 states led by Texas that sued to
block Obama's unilateral 2014 executive action that bypassed
Congress.
Liberal justices voiced support for Obama's action. The
conservatives sounded skeptical. A 4-4 decision would be a grim
defeat for Obama because it would uphold lower court rulings that
threw out his action last year and doom his quest to revamp a U.S.
immigration policy he calls broken.
More than a thousand people in favor of Obama's action staged a
raucous demonstration outside the white marble courthouse on a sunny
spring day, with cheery mariachi music from a red-and-black clad
band filling the air. A smaller group of Obama critics staged their
own rally.
In order to win, Obama would need the support of one of the court's
conservatives, most likely Chief Justice John Roberts or Anthony
Kennedy. But they both at times hit the Obama administration's
lawyer, U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, with tough
questions.
 Kennedy expressed concern that Obama had exceeded its authority by
having the executive branch set immigration policy rather than carry
out laws passed by Congress.
"It's as if the president is setting the policy and the Congress is
executing it. That's just upside down," Kennedy said.
A ruling is due by the end of June.
Obama's plan was tailored to let roughly 4 million people - those
who have lived illegally in the United States at least since 2010,
have no criminal record and have children who are U.S. citizens or
lawful permanent residents - get into a program that shields them
from deportation and supplies work permits.
Obama said the program, called Deferred Action for Parents of
Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA), was aimed at
preventing families from being torn apart.
The case comes during a heated presidential campaign in which the
status of the roughly 11 million immigrants in the United States
illegally, most of them from Mexico and other Latin American
nations, has been a central theme. Immigration is also a global
concern, with Europe now struggling with a flood of immigrants
fleeing violence in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere.
The Republican-governed states that filed suit asserted that the
Democratic president overstepped his authority provided in the
Constitution while his administration said he merely provided
guidance on how to enforce deportation laws.
A 4-4 ruling is possible because there are only eight justices
following February's death of conservative Antonin Scalia.
POSSIBLE COMPROMISE
One possible compromise outcome would be that the court could uphold
Obama's plan in part while leaving some legal questions unresolved,
including whether the government can provide work permits to
eligible applicants.
[to top of second column] |
Obama would also win if the justices decide the states had no
legitimate grounds to sue. Texas said it had "standing" to sue
because it would be hurt by the additional costs it would incur by
providing driver's licenses to those given legal status.
Liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted the "basic problem" that
the government lacks the resources to deport everyone in the country
illegally, meaning it must set priorities.
"There are these people who are here to stay, no matter what,"
Ginsburg said.
Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor criticized Texas' argument about the
economic harm caused by Obama's action, saying millions of
immigrants "are here in the shadows" and will affect the economy
"whether we want (them) to or not."
Verrilli said the federal government has regularly launched programs
aimed at giving large groups of immigrants temporary legal status as
part of its role establishing enforcement priorities due to limited
resources.
Asked by Roberts if the government has the power to allow all
immigrants who are in the country illegally to stay, Verrilli said:
"Definitely not."
Shortly before the plan was to take effect, a federal judge in Texas
blocked it after the states filed suit. The New Orleans-based 5th
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision in November.
Obama's executive action arose from frustration within the White
House and the immigrant community about a lack of action in
politically polarized Washington to address the status of people
living in the United States illegally.
He took the action after House of Representatives Republicans killed
bipartisan legislation, called the biggest overhaul of U.S.
immigration laws in decades and providing a path to citizenship for
illegal immigrants, that was passed by the Senate in 2013.
Obama, stifled by Republican lawmakers on many of his major
legislative initiatives, has drawn Republican ire with his use of
executive action to get around Congress on immigration policy and
other matters including gun control and healthcare.
(Additional reporting by Clarece Polke and Robert Iafolla)
[© 2016 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.]
Copyright 2016 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. |
