Federal legislators have proven unable to reach consensus on the issue of immigration reform for nearly a decade, but they have had their say via the Supreme Court case over the constitutionality of President Obama’s executive actions on immigration.
Both the House and the Senate on Monday filed amicus briefs in the case arguing that the president’s executive actions, announced in November 2014, should be found unconstitutional. While immigration reform supporters describe the executive move — called the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (“DAPA”) program — a long-overdue effort to clarify the status of millions of U.S. residents, workers and children, opponents call it a “stark contravention to federal law.”
Nearly four dozen Republican senators signed that chamber’s brief contending that Obama’s actions amount to “essentially making law from the White House, threatening the separation of powers laid out by the Constitution,” according to a report on the Politico website.
The House’s amicus brief, filed by Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), argues that "neither any immigration law now on the books nor the Constitution empowers [Obama] to authorize — let alone facilitate — the prospective violation of those laws on a massive class-wide scale,” Politico summarized.
Although the briefs were filed on the part of their respective Congressional houses, they were not unanimously supported by all members of either chamber. More than 200 members of Congress have filed individual amicus briefs supporting the Obama’s actions.
Oral arguments in the case are due to be held on April 18. The case was brought by the state of Texas, which subsequently was joined by 26 other Republican-led states.
The executive actions have been on pause for more than a year, after the states prevailed in federal District Court. Due to the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, the case could wind up with a deadlocked decision among the remaining eight Justices, in which case the Supreme Court essentially upholds the appellate court ruling placing an injunction on the executive actions.