Home
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/fifth-circuit-obama-immigration/415077/
The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals blocked a series of
President Obama’s executive orders on immigration on Friday,
frustrating the administration’s efforts to shield millions of
undocumented immigrants from deportation and setting up a
potential showdown at the U.S. Supreme Court.
A three-judge panel ruled against the Obama administration on a
2-1 vote in Texas v. United States, upholding a lower court’s
injunction against two programs. Obama created one of the
programs, called Deferred Action for Parents of Americans, or
DAPA, and expanded another, called Deferred Action for
Childhood Arrivals, or DACA in a unilateral effort to reshape the
U.S. immigration system after the 2014 midterm elections. Texas
and 26 other states sued the United States soon thereafter, in an
attempt to halt the executive actions.
Since the Constitution grants exclusive power over immigration law
to the federal government, the states’ lawsuit might seem quixotic.
To circumvent this, Texas and the other states contend that by
granting deferred action to an estimated five million
undocumented immigrants, the Obama administration’s executive
actions force the states to either provide services to them or change
their state laws to avoid doing so. Texas, the only state whose
standing was explicitly recognized by the court, specifically argued
that the immigrants’ “lawful presence” would require the state to
provide them with “state-subsidized driver's licenses”and
unemployment insurance.
The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals blocked a series of
President Obama’s executive orders on immigration on Friday,
frustrating the administration’s efforts to shield millions of
undocumented immigrants from deportation and setting up a
potential showdown at the U.S. Supreme Court.
A three-judge panel ruled against the Obama administration on a
2-1 vote in Texas v. United States, upholding a lower court’s
injunction against two programs. Obama created one of the
programs, called Deferred Action for Parents of Americans, or
DAPA, and expanded another, called Deferred Action for
Childhood Arrivals, or DACA in a unilateral effort to reshape the
U.S. immigration system after the 2014 midterm elections. Texas
and 26 other states sued the United States soon thereafter, in an
attempt to halt the executive actions.
Since the Constitution grants exclusive power over immigration law
to the federal government, the states’ lawsuit might seem quixotic.
To circumvent this, Texas and the other states contend that by
granting deferred action to an estimated five million
undocumented immigrants, the Obama administration’s executive
actions force the states to either provide services to them or change
their state laws to avoid doing so. Texas, the only state whose
standing was explicitly recognized by the court, specifically argued
that the immigrants’ “lawful presence” would require the state to
provide them with “state-subsidized driver's licenses”and
unemployment insurance.