Supreme Court takes on Obama on immigration

The Supreme Court took up one of the most controversial issues of the Obama presidency on Tuesday, agreeing to decide whether the president can enact sweeping immigration policy change on his own.

The justices took the extraordinary step of adding an aspect to the case not yet decided in lower courts: whether Obama acted within his constitutional bounds in 2014 with the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, or DAPA, program.

Obama. Immigration policy. Acting without instructions from Congress. The constitutional limits on the presidency.

This is a big case.

It’s also a Texas case, one of several to be decided before the court ends its current session in June.

Obama became frustrated in 2014 at the lack of congressional action on immigration reform. He announced DAPA in November of that year.

He said undocumented immigrants whose children are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents and who could show that they have been in the United States at least since January 2010 would be allowed to stay and work in the U.S. legally for three years.

Texas was the first state to object, filing a lawsuit that was later joined by other states before federal District Judge Andrew S. Hanen in Brownsville.

Hanen ruled that the administration did not file proper notice of the proposal or gather public input, a violation of federal law, and he put DAPA on hold. A panel of judges from the 5th U.S. Circuit of Appeals agreed, and the administration appealed to the Supreme Court.

The court first has to decide whether the states have standing to bring the suit. Hanen said Texas does, because it would incur expenses in issuing drivers licenses to immigrants allowed to stay.

That’s a stretch, the administration says.

Then comes the question of whether Obama has the legal authority to issue the policy. The administration says he does, because Congress has allowed the president discretion in implementing some aspects of immigration laws.

The states disagree, calling DAPA a broad exemption that applies to 4 million people.

Next, the court will look at whether the administration followed proper procedures to set DAPA in motion.

Finally, the justices added the constitutional question: whether in the case of DAPA Obama is obeying his constitutional obligation to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

That question goes to the heart of complaints about several Obama executive orders. This case won’t settle all of those complaints, but it will set a framework.

This story was originally published January 20, 2016 at 5:39 PM with the headline "Supreme Court takes on Obama on immigration."