Supreme Court Sets Stage for Epic Immigration Showdown Before Election

[Geee]

Brietbart:

The U.S. Supreme Court will decide the fate of President Barack Obama’s executive amnesty for illegal aliens before the 2016 presidential election.

 

Twenty-six states have sued the federal government regarding DAPA, Obama’s federal regulation that indefinitely shelters 4.3 million illegal aliens from deportation and separately grants them work permits, authorizing them to obtain employment in the United States. Under this program, illegal aliens will also have access to entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicaid, and Obamacare.

 

Updated from our previous report, the justices have denied in part Texas Solicitor General Scott Keller’s request for a 30-day extension of the deadline to file briefs opposing the Justice Department’s petition for Supreme Court review (called a petition for a writ of certiorari). The justices have granted Texas only an extra eight days past the normal deadline.

 

As a consequence, the states must file a brief by December 29 explaining why the Supreme Court should not take this case at this time. U.S Solicitor General Donald Verrilli informed the Court that he would waive the federal government’s right to file any reply to the states, so that the petition may be distributed immediately to the justices for consideration.

[Draggingtree]

The Supreme Court and Amnesty: Coming Soon?

Posted by davenj1 on

 

January 17, 2016 at 9:09 am

 

The Supreme Court and Amnesty: Coming Soon?

 

We may know as soon as Tuesday whether the United States Supreme Court will accept the case of United States vs. Texas which challenges Obama's series of executive orders which would effectively allow up to 4 million illegal immigrants remain in this country.

 

To recap, in November 2014 Obama announced a series of executive actions that would protect illegal immigrants from threat of deportation and eventually grant work permits to them. Three months later a court in the Southern District of Texas sitting in Brownsville issued a stay on implementation of the actions. The Obama administration appealed to the judge in that case to lift the stay pending appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals which includes Texas. The judge refused and the administration moved onto the Appeals Court. In a 2-1 decision, the Fifth Circuit refused to lift the stay and the administration then appealed to the United States Supreme Court.

http://www.redstate.com/diary/davenj1/2016/01/17/supreme-court-amnesty-coming-soon/

[Draggingtree]

No action on immigration; McDonnell gets hearing

By Lyle Denniston on Jan 15, 2016 at 4:46 pm

The administration had hoped that the Court would grant review immediately of the controversial plan to defer the deportation of more than four million undocumented immigrants, so as to help assure that the program could be put into effect later this year. It is now blocked by lower court orders. There was nothing about United States v. Texas, however, on the orders released at mid-afternoon Friday.

Some further indications of the possible fate of the immigration case could come on Tuesday morning, when the Court will release additional orders — including those denying review — in cases considered at the Justices’ private Conference earlier in the day Friday. It is possible, but there is no way to know whether it might happen until then, that the Court could deny review of the immigration case altogether, leaving that case to go to a trial in federal court in Texas. Because time might run out on President Obama’s time in office, a denial of review by the Justices could mean the end of the new program

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/01/no-action-on-immigration-mcdonnell-gets-hearing/

[Draggingtree]

Immigration policy: Review and decision this Term

By Lyle Denniston on Jan 19, 2016 at 9:50 am

The Obama administration’s sweeping change of deportation policy for undocumented immigrants will get a thorough review by the Supreme Court, including the question of whether it violates the Constitution, the Court announced Tuesday. The case of United States v. Texas will be set for argument in April, making it almost certain that there will be a final ruling by the end of June — in the midst of a presidential election campaign in which immigration is a major issue.

 

The Court also spared the federal government from another challenge to the new health care law, denying review of a claim that the individual insurance mandate violates the Constitution’s Origination Clause, requiring federal tax legislation to start in the House of Representatives (Sissel v. Health & Human Services Department). In another significant action, the Justices refused to hear an Arkansas abortion case, involving a state law that bars any abortion after the twelfth week of pregnancy (Beck v. Edwards).

Continue reading »

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/01/immigration-policy-review-and-decision-this-term/#more-237381

[clearvision]

Wish it had been tied up longer.

[Valin]

Supreme Court to hear executive amnesty case
Paul Mirengoff
January 19, 2016

(Snip)

Before reaching the merits, the Court will have to resolve the threshold issue of whether the states have suffered the sort of direct and concrete injury that gives them standing to sue. The New York Times summarizes this dispute nicely:

Judge Jerry E. Smith, writing for the majority in the appeals court, said the states had standing to challenge the program under a 2007 Supreme Court decision that said Massachusetts and other states were entitled to sue the Environmental Protection Agency over its refusal to regulate motor vehicle emissions contributing to climate change.

Judge Smith said Texas would suffer a similarly direct and concrete injury in having to spend millions of dollars to provide driver’s licenses to immigrants as a consequence of the federal program.

Mr. Verrilli [Obama’s Solicitor General] told the justices that Texas’ injury, such as it was, was self-inflicted, a product of its own decision to offer driver’s licenses to people lawfully in the United States at reduced cost.

Texas responded that being required to change its laws is itself the sort of harm that confers standing. “Texas could avoid the driver’s-license-cost injury only by changing its policy and making driver’s licenses less affordable,” the states told the justices. “That is itself an injury, because Texas has a sovereign interest in enforcing its legal code.”

 

 

(Snip)

[Draggingtree]

How novel is the Supreme Court’s decision to review the president’s immigration guidance for consistency with the Take Care Clause?

 

By David Bernstein January 20 at 12:00 PM

 

As I noted yesterday, the Supreme Court decided to add the following question to its review of the legality of President Obama’s immigration guidance: “Whether the Guidance violates the Take Care Clause of the Constitution, Art. II, §3.” I added that “this is the first time, to my knowledge, that the Supreme Court, maybe any court, has suggested that the Take Care Clause is justiciable (i.e., that the president’s (in)actions are subject to judicial review under the clause).”

 

A correspondent pointed out that the Clause was discussed in the Steel Seizure Case. In that case the Truman administration argued unsuccessfully that the Clause gave the president extra power to do things not authorized by Congress, a presidential analogue to Congress’s power “to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/01/20/how-novel-is-the-supreme-courts-decision-to-review-the-presidents-immigration-guidance-for-consistency-with-the-take-care-clause/

[Draggingtree]

April arguments, day by day

By Lyle Denniston on Mar 4, 2016 at 11:20 am

The Supreme Court on Friday released the list of oral arguments for the final scheduled sitting of the Term, beginning on Monday, April 18, and continuing for two weeks. The government’s appeal on President Barack Obama’s sweeping new immigration policy will be heard on that first day; it is the only case set for that day, allowing the hour’s time allotted to be extended.

 

The daily schedule, with a brief summary of the legal issues at stake in each case, follows the jump.

Continue reading »

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/03/april-arguments-day-by-day-5/#more-239453

[Draggingtree]

July 12, 2012|

The Constitution and Executive Privilege

 

by MARK ROZELL|10 Comments

 

What does Executive privilege protect?

Executive privilege is the constitutional principle that permits the president and high-level executive branch officers to withhold information from Congress, the courts, and ultimately the public. This presidential power is controversial because it is nowhere mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. That fact has led some scholars (Berger 1974; Prakash, 1999) to suggest that executive privilege does not exist and that the congressional power of inquiry is absolute. There is no doubt that presidents and their staffs have secrecy needs and that these decision makers must be able to deliberate in private without fear that every utterance may be made public. But many observers question whether presidents have the right to withhold documents and testimony in the face of congressional investigations or judicial proceedings.

 

 

Executive privilege is an implied presidential power that is recognized by the courts, most famously in the U.S. v. Nixon (1974) Supreme Court case. There are generally four areas that an executive branch claim of privilege is based: 1) presidential communications privilege; 2) deliberative process privilege; 3) national security, foreign relations or military affairs, and 4) an ongoing law enforcement investigation. In the current controversy over congressional access to Department of Justice documents pertaining to the Fast & Furious scandal investigation, the president and Attorney General Eric Holder are relying on the deliberative process privilege and also the ongoing law enforcement investigation defense.

http://www.libertylawsite.org/2012/07/12/the-constitution-and-executive-privilege/