With executive action, Obama risks losing Chief Justice John Roberts
By David G. Savage
December 1, 2014 - Los Angeles Times
President Obama always knew his plan to shield millions of immigrants from
deportation would enrage Republicans on Capitol Hill who oppose most of what he
does.
But by claiming the power to forge ahead based on his executive authority,
the president may well lose the one conservative he still really needs: Chief
Justice John G. Roberts Jr.
Two years ago, the chief justice surprised many by joining liberals on the
court to uphold the constitutionality of Obama's Affordable Care Act. And he
probably holds the deciding vote in a second legal challenge to the healthcare
law — one that seeks to eliminate government insurance subsidies to low- and
middle-income enrollees in two-thirds of the nation.
But Roberts, an appointee of President George W. Bush, has shown an
increasing skepticism toward what conservatives call Obama's tendency to
overreach.
In June, the high court ruled Obama exceeded his power when he made temporary
recess appointments during a brief Senate break. Roberts joined Justice Antonin
Scalia in a separate opinion that would have gone further by banning nearly all
such appointments. They asserted "all presidents have a high interest in
expanding the powers of their office" and it was the court's duty to keep them
in check.
The same week, a 5-4 majority that included the chief justice ruled that the
administration went too far when it required Christian business owners to pay
for certain contraceptives for female employees.
When Obama announced his executive action on immigration last month, it set
off another furor on the political right, where it was denounced as an abuse of
power befitting a "monarch" or an "emperor."
Ilya Shapiro, a lawyer for the libertarian Cato Institute, said the
immigration order is the "starkest example" of what he called the president's
"pattern of lawlessness."
The question now is whether the president's immigration action will influence
the thinking of the justices, and particularly of Roberts, as they consider in
the upcoming healthcare case whether the president exceeded his
authority.
At issue is whether the administration must abide by one provision in the
healthcare law, which says subsidies may be paid to those who enrolled in state
health exchanges, or whether the president can extend those benefits to include
people who signed up on the federally run exchange.
The administration argues the healthcare law, read as whole, shows Congress
intended to make the subsidies available nationwide. But critics are appealing
to Roberts and the court's conservatives, arguing the president and his advisors
have no power to unilaterally change a law passed by Congress.
Their argument echoes the criticism voiced over Obama's immigration
directive, accusing the president of trying to fix a broken system by acting on
his own rather than waiting for Congress.
Experts say that legally the healthcare case is a close call. If so, the
outcome may turn on whether the justices are inclined to give the president the
benefit of the doubt, or whether they believe it's time to rein him in.
Obama's bold decision to press ahead with his immigration order in the wake
of the GOP victories in the midterm election will not escape the attention of
the court's conservatives.
Shapiro said the new immigration plan will "confirm the chief justice's view"
that the court should not allow the administration to revise laws passed by
Congress.
Many presidents have been stung when the Supreme Court turned against them
for overstepping their powers.
After the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush enjoyed broad support for his "war on
terrorism." But when Bush brandished his power as commander in chief and
insisted he alone set the rules for detained terrorists, the high court turned
against him.
Bush suffered three defeats over his efforts to hold detainees without a
hearing at the Guantanamo Bay prison facility in Cuba. "A state of war is not a
blank check for the president," said Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a Republican
appointee who faulted Bush's go-it-alone approach.
President Clinton had long been beset by rumors over his personal life when
the Supreme Court cleared the way for lawyers for Paula Jones to question him
under oath in her sexual harassment lawsuit. The decision helped trigger
impeachment proceedings against Clinton.
President Truman was in deep political trouble when the high court rebuked
him for using the military to seize steel mills during the Korean War. And
President Nixon resigned in 1974 shortly after the court ruled he must turn over
the Watergate tapes.
Obama's presidency is not at stake before the high court, but a defeat in the
healthcare law dispute of King vs. Burwell could cripple the program.
Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A.
Alito voted to strike down the law entirely in 2012. When the case comes up for
argument in March, Obama's lawyers will be hoping the chief justice is not ready
to join them this time.