United States v. Texas

Texas is the center of more than one Supreme Court case this semester. In our earlier post, you learned a little about what's been going on with the Fisher case. Another Supreme Court case that is currently pending is also based in the Lone Star state. This case deals with an immigration policy instituted by President Obama in late 2014 (DAPA) that developed on a 2012 policy (DACA) and it was argued yesterday before the eight justices.

Immigration and Customs Seal (wikipedia)

The 2012 policy allowed for deferred action for those who came to the U.S. illegally as children and for them to apply for citizenship. It also allowed for prosecutors to choose when to enforce immigration laws under DACA. Obama's 2014 policy expanded DACA to allow for the parents of lawful and permanent resident children to also be eligible for these exceptions.

Map depicting states for and against this policy (graphic
from of CIS.org)

Texas, with 25 other states, filed against this change in the policy (DAPA) saying that it violates the Administrative Procedure Act since it did not undergo the process of notification and commentary.

The case also argues against President Obama's power to issue this type of policy. The lower courts found in favor of Texas and the states that filed with it saying that it had standing and the effect of the notice-and-comment process would not have benefitted the U.S. government.

Now that the case has been argued, we're just waiting on an opinion, which will likely come at the end of this Supreme Court term in June. It will be interesting to see whether the court find in favor of one side outright or decides on how the case should be viewed and remands for additional proceedings. Whether the Court decides in favor of the U.S. or Texas, it will be necessary to watch what kind of language is used as this case could easily separate/maintain families already living in the U.S. (albeit without documentation) or enhance borders and tighten immigration law. But, whatever happens, let's hope that the Court finds a way to allow for positive immigration reform because we need it, and not in the form of a giant wall.