Is It Too Late for Obama On Immigration Reform? | Immigration Battle | FRONTLINE | PBS


President Barack Obama’s pledge to overtake the nation’s immigration insurance policies now hinges on how briskly, if in any respect, the Supreme Court docket considers the primary authorized problem to these reforms.

On Monday, a federal appeals court docket dominated that the administration couldn’t transfer ahead with a plan to present as many as 5 million undocumented immigrants with work permits and safety from deportation.

The result shocked nobody. Nonetheless, proponents of the reforms have been hoping the choice would arrive in time for the administration to petition the Supreme Court docket to resolve the case as early as this spring. If the appeals court docket’s ruling is overturned, that may permit the reforms to be carried out earlier than the president leaves workplace in Jan. 2017. In any other case, the insurance policies face an unsure future within the fingers of the subsequent president.

Reform supporters say they’re optimistic, however authorized consultants say that the timeline could now be too tight for the Supreme Court docket to rule on the case throughout its present time period — except the justices take the weird step of expediting its assessment.

The administration has been battling court docket challenges — and the clock — for the reason that president introduced the coverage, often known as Deferred Motion for Mother and father of Individuals (DAPA), in addition to a separate plan to develop protections for immigrants delivered to america as kids. Obama unveiled the initiatives after complete immigration reform died on Capitol Hill final yr, saying  he would not look forward to Congress to finish its impasse over reform.

The two government actions have been instantly challenged by the lawyer common of Texas in a lawsuit that was joined by 25 different states who mentioned they’d be financially harmed by the initiatives. The states argued that the administration overstepped its authority with the initiatives, wading into policy-making territory usually reserved for Congress.

In February, a federal choose in Texas dominated that the administration should halt the reforms. In Could, a three-member panel of america Court docket of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld that injunction in a preliminary resolution. On Monday, its last ruling got here out — a 2-1 resolution towards the Obama administration.

Regardless of the defeat, advocates for reform “breathed an enormous sigh of reduction” when it got here down, mentioned Melissa Crow, authorized director for the American Immigration Council, which filed an amicus transient in favor of the administration’s actions. Supporters had been anticipating the choice towards their case for months — the one query was whether or not it might arrive in time for an enchantment to be made to the Supreme Court docket this yr.

“We knew we needed to have the Fifth Circuit resolution earlier than we might transfer ahead. The beginning gun has now been fired and we’re not in limbo, which is nice,” Crow mentioned.

After the choice got here out Monday, the Division of Justice introduced that it might enchantment the case “as rapidly as potential.” Crow mentioned the division has been getting ready the enchantment for months, and that it might come inside days.

The 26 states concerned within the go well with will then have 30 days to reply to the enchantment — however they’ll additionally search an extension of one other 30 days, mentioned Josh Blackman, a legislation professor at South Texas School of Legislation, who filed an amicus transient supporting the states. The Justice Division is bound to oppose the extension, however Blackman mentioned its possibilities of successful that combat are slim: “I can’t discover any occasion the place the court docket denied a 30-day extension. Typically talking, they’re computerized.”

As soon as the states submit their response, the Supreme Court docket often provides itself about two weeks to assessment a case, after which the justices convene to resolve whether or not to listen to it, mentioned Blackman.

In previous years, instances thought-about by the court docket earlier than Jan. 15 are sometimes heard throughout its present time period, which ends in June; instances that come later are heard within the subsequent time period, which begins in October — too late for the Obama administration to finish the months-long work of implementing the coverage.

Blackman did the maths: If the Justice Division appeals by Nov. 20, the states would have no less than till Dec. 20 to file a short. If they’re granted the conventional 30-day extension, that takes them to the tip of January. That will push the enchantment previous the essential mid-January inflection level.

Even then, although, the Supreme Court docket might nonetheless select to listen to the case this time period, if the justices contemplate it pressing sufficient. However they might not be motivated to rush the query, in response to Blackman.

At difficulty is a “very severe separation of powers difficulty,” he famous, one that may require the court docket to rule on how far a president’s energy for government motion can go — an space of legislation that he mentioned has been gray for many years. The court docket has thought-about such points earlier than, Blackman mentioned, however its common coverage has tended towards making greater choices than it strictly has to.

“I don’t assume they’ll be rushed to resolve such a severe difficulty,” mentioned Blackman, particularly since “this case could go away totally with the subsequent presidential election if a Republican turns into president.”

However Crow famous that the court docket wouldn’t essentially should resolve the chief motion query. As a substitute, it might decide that Texas lacks standing to problem the case.

Texas has argued that it has standing as a result of it must spend extra to difficulty driver’s licenses and supply different state providers to undocumented immigrants protected by the president’s proposals. However the federal authorities has argued that the state is prone to profit from elevated tax income.

In its ruling this week, the bulk for the Fifth Circuit mentioned Texas had standing, noting that the state would lose a minimal of $130.89 for every driver’s license issued to a DAPA beneficiary.

In her 53-page dissent, Choose Carolyn King questioned that argument, and took difficulty with the velocity at which the court docket’s ruling was issued.

“I’ve a agency and particular conviction {that a} mistake has been made,” wrote King. “That mistake has been exacerbated by the prolonged delay that has occurred in deciding this ‘expedited’ enchantment. There isn’t a justification for that delay.”


Katie Worth

Katie Price, Former Reporter, FRONTLINE



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *