Supreme Court Tie Blocks Obama Immigration Plan
By ADAM LIPTAK and MICHAEL D. SHEAR
JUNE 23, 2016 - The New York Times
WASHINGTON
— The Supreme
Court announced on Thursday that it had deadlocked in a case challenging President
Obamafs immigration plan, effectively ending what Mr. Obama had hoped would
become one of his central legacies. The program would have shielded as many as
five million undocumented immigrants from deportation and allowed them to
legally work in the United States.
The
4-4 tie, which left in place an appeals court ruling blocking the plan,
amplified the contentious election-year debate over the nationfs immigration
policy and presidential power.
When
the Supreme Court agreed
to hear the case in January, it seemed poised to issue a major ruling on
presidential power. That did not materialize, but the courtfs action, which
established no precedent and included no reasoning, was nonetheless perhaps its
most important statement this term.
The
decision was just nine words long: gThe judgment is affirmed by an equally
divided court.h
But its consequences will be vast, said Walter Dellinger,
who was acting solicitor general in the Clinton administration. gSeldom have the
hopes of so many been crushed by so few words,h he said.
Speaking at the White House, Mr. Obama described the
ruling as a deep disappointment for immigrants who would not be able to emerge
from the threat of deportation for at least the balance of his term.
gTodayfs decision is frustrating to those who seek to grow
our economy and bring a rationality to our immigration system,h he said before
heading to the West Coast for a two-day
trip. gIt is heartbreaking for the millions of immigrants who have made
their lives here.h
The decision was one of two
determined by tie votes Thursday — the other concerned Indian tribal courts —
and one of four so far this term. The court is scheduled to issue its final
three decisions of the term, including one on a restrictive Texas abortion law,
on Monday.
Mr. Obama said the courtfs
immigration ruling was a stark reminder of the consequences
of Republicansf refusal to consider Judge Merrick B. Garland, the presidentfs
nominee to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court created by the death
of Justice Antonin Scalia.
gIf you keep on blocking judges from getting on the bench,
then courts canft issue decisions,h Mr. Obama said. gAnd what that means is then
you are going to have the status quo frozen, and we are not able to make
progress on some very important issues.h
The case, United
States v. Texas, No. 15-674, concerned a 2014 executive action by the
president to allow as many as five million unauthorized immigrants who were the
parents of citizens or of lawful permanent residents to apply for a program that
would spare them from deportation and provide them with work permits. The
program was called Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent
Residents, or DAPA.
Mr. Obama has said he took the action after years of
frustration with Republicans in Congress who had repeatedly refused to support
bipartisan Senate legislation to update immigration laws. A coalition of 26
states, led by Texas, promptly challenged the plan, accusing the president of
ignoring administrative procedures for changing rules and of abusing the power
of his office by circumventing Congress.
gTodayfs decision keeps in place what we have maintained
from the very start: One person, even a president, cannot unilaterally change
the law,h Ken Paxton, the Texas attorney general, said in a statement after the
ruling. gThis is a major setback to President Obamafs attempts to expand
executive power, and a victory for those who believe in the separation of powers
and the rule of law.h
The court did not disclose how the justices had voted, but
they were almost certainly split along ideological lines. Administration
officials had hoped that Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. would join the
courtfs four-member liberal wing to save the program.
The case hinged in part on whether Texas had suffered the
sort of direct and concrete injury that gave it standing to sue. Texas said it
had standing because it would be costly for the state to give driverfs licenses
to immigrants affected by the federal policy.
Chief Justice Roberts is
often skeptical of expansive standing arguments. But it seemed plain when
the case was argued in April that he was satisfied that Texas had standing,
paving the way for a deadlock.
Mr. Obama said the White House did not believe the terse
ruling from the court had any effect on the presidentfs authority to act
unilaterally. But he said the practical effect would be to freeze his efforts on
behalf of immigrants until after the November election.
He also predicted that lawmakers would eventually act to
overhaul the nationfs immigration system.
gCongress is not going to be able to ignore America
forever,h he said. gItfs not a matter of if; itfs a matter of when. We get these
spasms of politics around immigration and fear-mongering, and then our
traditions and our history and our better impulses kick in.h
White House officials had repeatedly argued that
presidents in both parties had used similar executive authority in applying the
nationfs immigration laws. And they said Congress had granted federal law
enforcement wide discretion over how those laws should be carried out.
But the courtfs ruling may mean that the next president
will again need to seek a congressional compromise to overhaul the nationfs
immigration laws. And it left immigration activists deeply disappointed.
gThis is personal,h Rocio Saenz, the executive vice
president of the Service Employees International Union, said in a statement. gWe
will remain at the front lines, committed to defending the immigration
initiatives and paving the path to lasting immigration reform.h
The lower court rulings in the case were provisional, and
the litigation will now continue and may again reach the Supreme Court when it
is back at full strength. In the meantime, it seems unlikely that the program
will be revived.
In February 2015, Judge Andrew S. Hanen of Federal
District Court in Brownsville, Tex., entered
a preliminary injunction shutting down the program while the legal case
proceeded. The government appealed, and a divided three-judge panel of the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans affirmed
the injunction.
In their Supreme Court briefs, the
states acknowledged that the president had wide authority over immigration
matters, telling the justices that gthe executive does have enforcement
discretion to forbear from removing aliens on an individual basis.h Their
quarrel, they said, was with what they called a blanket grant of glawful
presenceh to millions of immigrants, entitling them to various benefits.
In
response, Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. told the justices that
this glawful presenceh was merely what had always followed from the executive
branchfs decision not to deport someone for a given period of time.
gDeferred action does not provide these individuals with
any lawful status under the immigration laws,h he said. gBut it provides some
measure of dignity and decent treatment.h
gIt recognizes the damage that would be wreaked by tearing
apart families,h Mr. Verrilli added, gand it allows individuals to leave the
shadow economy and work on the books to provide for their families, thereby
reducing exploitation and distortion in our labor markets.h
The states said they had suffered the sort of direct and
concrete injury that gave them standing to sue.
Judge Jerry E. Smith, writing for the majority in the
appeals court, focused on an injury said to have been suffered by Texas, which
he said would have to spend millions of dollars to provide driverfs licenses to
immigrants as a consequence of the federal program.
Mr. Verrilli told the justices that Texasf injury was
self-inflicted, a product of its decision to offer driverfs licenses for less
than they cost to produce and to tie eligibility for them to federal
standards.
Texas
responded that being required to change its laws was itself the sort of harm
that conferred standing. gSuch a forced change in Texas law would impair Texasf
sovereign interest in ethe power to create and enforce a legal code,fh the
statefs lawyers wrote in a brief.
Judge Hanen grounded his injunction on the Obama
administrationfs failure to give notice and seek public comments on its new
program. He found that notice and comment were required because the program gave
blanket relief to entire categories of people, notwithstanding the
administrationfs assertion that it required case-by-case determinations about
who was eligible for the program.
The appeals court affirmed that
ruling and added a broader one. The program, it said, also exceeded Mr. Obamafs
statutory authority.