Can Obama keep 5 million immigrants in the U.S.?
We’re introducing a new AJ+ column, Case by Case, where each week I’ll walk you through an important trial, lawsuit or grand jury decision, and explain why it matters. The justice system impacts us all, but legal talk can be so dry that it’s easy to tune it out, or just get confused. I know this firsthand, as someone who previously reported courts stories for a legal publication.
This week I’m going to walk you through what’s been going on with President Obama’s immigration plan, which got fresh life this week. You might remember how in late 2014, Obama came out with a sweeping order that would allow an estimated five million undocumented immigrants to stay in the country. Well, the lower courts shut that down immediately, after a bunch of conservative states argued that Obama doesn’t have the power to make such an order. So, does he? The Supreme Court, which has the final say, will soon decide. Let’s take a look at what’s at stake, and how this all went down.
THE STAKES:
This case is hugely important to the future of undocumented immigrants in the U.S., and those who love or employ them. The actions would defer deportation for an estimated five million, and many would get the opportunity to obtain a temporary work permit, rather than getting paid often low wages under the table. As Obama put it, it means immigrants “can come out of the shadows.”
Obama’s order would have been moot if the Supreme Court hadn’t taken on the case. But now, if they side with him, Obama’s plan will get green-lighted before he leaves office. If they don’t, it was just a feeble attempt by the president to get immigration reform done while Congress is gridlocked.
HOW WE GOT HERE:
A lot of people, including Obama, were frustrated that Congress still hadn’t reformed the immigration system. Some thought the Republicans would be the ones to push for reform — in order to pander to Latino constituents after Obama crushed them in the 2012 election in part because of Latino support. But the Republicans did not. So Obama took matters into his own hands. He said that under a presidential order he would give temporary legal status to parents of U.S. citizens or legal residents, and expand a program allowing kids who came to the U.S. as minors to stay here legally.
Twenty-six states said hell no, and sued Obama. They argued it was an overreach for a president, who has to follow the laws that Congress writes rather than make up his own. And they chose to sue in a state that would be friendly to their arguments: Texas. See, federal judges are seated across the country to provide checks and balance on both the president and Congress. Sometimes the groups suing, bring cases in front of certain judges or courts they think might will be more favorable to them. Oh, America.
The Texas judge agreed with the 26 states on technical grounds — including a legal argument that Obama had to offer a period for the public to comment on the plan—and blocked the order. A federal appeals court upheld the judge’s decision, keeping Obama’s order stalled. But the U.S. Justice Department stepped in to argue that Obama is allowed to make such an order, and asked the Supreme Court to examine the case. The country’s highest court only takes 75–80 cases each year, usually to resolve a conflict in the law, or one of particular importance. They agreed to hear this one.
Now, 12 states and the District of Columbia and 126 immigration law professors have sided with the Obama administration. Penn State Law Professor Shoba Wadhia, who signed a letter penned by the professors, said that what Obama is proposing is valid under immigration laws.
“The president’s announcement to formalize a program and include transparent procedures and policies should not be mistaken as creating something new in the law,” Wadhia told AJ+. “Really what he did was infuse more transparency and allow for more input.”
WHAT’S NEXT:
Each side will file briefs to the Supreme Court in the coming weeks. Arguments are likely to take place in April, and a decision should come out by June — smack in the middle of campaign season. We can expect candidates from both sides to be talking a lot about this case and their immigration plans. And, who knows, maybe it will infuse some rational debate about actual policy into the debates, rather than distracting the public with far-fetched plans about walls and a Muslim registry. We’ll see.
Case by Case is a weekly column breaking down an important lawsuit or court case. Have a suggestion or tip? Want to know more about a certain legal issue? Contact @hadsrobinson on Twitter or Medium.
