Obama amnesty Supreme Court case to test limits of presidential power

[Geee]

Washington Examiner:

The Constitution was ratified more than two centuries ago, and in all that time no president had ever tested the limits of executive power enough to force the Supreme Court to rule whether he has lived up to the founders’ command that the laws be “faithfully executed.”

 

Until now.

 

When the justices convene Monday morning, they will hear what is shaping up to be the biggest case of the term, and perhaps one of the most consequential in a generation, as they consider whether President Obama has overstepped his constitutional powers by trying to grant a tentative deportation amnesty to up to 5 million illegal immigrants.

 

“In 225 years, the Supreme Court has never had occasion to ask the president whether he has reneged on his oath to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. However, with pens and phones replacing checks and balances, the Supreme Court is now poised to break new constitutional ground in order to preserve our embattled separation of powers,” said Josh Blackman, associate professor at the South Texas College of Law, who has followed the case from the start and filed amicus briefs opposing Mr. Obama’s claim of powers.

 

At issue is the Take Care Clause, which is what scholars call the Constitution’s charge to presidents to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

[Draggingtree]

Focus on Chief Justice as Supreme Court Hears Immigration Challenge

By ADAM LIPTAK APRIL 17, 2016

WASHINGTON — Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. twice voted to save President Obama’s health care law, infuriating his usual allies on the right. Now, conservatives are nervous that the chief justice will disappoint them again in a challenge to another major Obama initiative, this one on immigration.

 

The case, to be argued on Monday at the Supreme Court, presents fundamental questions about executive power against the backdrop of a wrenching national debate over Mr. Obama’s plan to spare millions of immigrants from deportation. But Chief Justice Roberts’s record suggests that he may avoid taking a position on such a divisive and partisan issue, focusing instead on the more technical question of whether the states challenging the Obama administration’s immigration plan have suffered the sort of direct and concrete injury that gives them standing to sue.

That jurisprudential off-ramp would avoid a deadlock or a grand pronouncement from a short-handed court on a politically charged issue in a presidential election year. And that may prove attractive to a chief justice who has said he does not want the Supreme Court to be viewed as a forum where “partisan matters would be worked out.” http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/04/18/us/politics/focus-on-chief-justice-as-supreme-court-hears-immigration-challenge.html?_r=2&referer=

[Draggingtree]

4/18/2016

Obama’s Illegal Executive Amnesty Argued Today in Supreme Court

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:35 am

Another reminder of how sharply Justice Scalia is missed.

 

Adam Liptak is doing the Linda Greenhouse thing they do at the New York Times, where they identify a Justice who deeply cares about public opinion (like Anthony Kennedy or, here, John Roberts), and send him a message about how much more statesmanlike it would be to leave the leftist policy in place.

 

Hey, it worked before.

[Geee]

The Highlights of the Supreme Court Oral Argument on Obama’s Executive Amnesty

 

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case brought by Texas and 25 other states challenging the Obama administration’s attempt to give legal status and work authorizations to more than four million illegal immigrants.

 

At the argument, the justices wrestled with whether the Obama administration exceeded its authority and whether the states have standing to sue.

 

Obama’s Executive Action

 

In 2012, the Obama administration created the Deferred Action of Childhood Arrivals program, enabling 1.7 million illegal aliens under 30 years old brought to the U.S. as children to apply for work authorization and deferred deportation. A deferred action is relief from deportation or removal proceedings granted by the Department of Homeland Security.

 

http://dailysignal.com/2016/04/18/the-highlights-of-the-supreme-court-oral-argument-on-obamas-executive-amnesty/

[Geee]

Supreme Court split on Obama amnesty; Kennedy: Policy ‘just upside-down’

 

The Supreme Court divided deeply Monday over President Obama’s deportation amnesty, with conservative justices saying the White House was trying to steal Congress’s law-making powers, and liberal justices suggesting the court should stay out of the fight altogether, leaving the president with a free hand.

 

Outside the court, thousands of Hispanic-rights protesters rallied, demanding legal status from the courts and vowing political retribution on Congress — and Republicans in particular — if Mr. Obama loses his case.

 

Inside the courtroom, however, the argument was lower-key, with the justices sparring with lawyers over the tricky interplay between the law, federal regulations and Mr. Obama’s hopes of shielding most illegal immigrants from deportation.

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/18/supreme-court-divided-over-obama-amnesty/

[Draggingtree]

Obama administration immigration plan remains blocked by 4-4 Supreme Court tie. Lower court injunction remains in place (opinion here);

[Draggingtree]

6/23/2016

Obama’s Illegal Amnesty Blocked by Supreme Court in 4-4 Tie

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:51 am

When leftists and judicial conservatives are split 4-4, as here, the important thing becomes the decision of the lower court — because a tie goes to the runner lower court decision.

 

That’s what happened here. The fate of his plan came down to a single vote in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled 2-1 against Obama. Today’s decision is a single line, saying that the decision below was affirmed by an equally divided court. It is not clear to me whether the Court will be announcing who voted which way (I think they won’t), but the line-up is nevertheless as predictable as rain in Seattle:

 

the 4 reliable lefties vs. the 4 mostly-conservatives.

 

Note that this opinion merely affirms a stay. A trial on the merits still looms.

http://patterico.com/2016/06/23/obamas-illegal-amnesty-blocked-by-supreme-court-in-4-4-tie/

[Draggingtree]

SCOTUS: Obama Immigration Executive Orders Remain Blocked

Posted by Sarah Rumpf June 23, 2016 at 11:05am

The 4-4 tie vote means lower court ruling stands.

In a much-anticipated decision, the Supreme Court issued a tied decision Thursday in United States v. Texas, which dealt with the constitutionality of the executive orders President Barack Obama issued regarding parents who were illegal immigrants but whose children were citizens or legal residents (commonly known as DAPA).

(more…)

[Draggingtree]

Breaking News :

Today the court issued additional ...

Breaking News : Today the court issued additional orders from its September 26 conference. The court did not add any new cases to its merits docket. The court rejected the Obama administration's request to reconsider the 4-4 invalidation of immigration policy in United States v. Texas with nine justices. The order list is here.