The U.S. Supreme Court struck yet another blow to the Obama executive amnesty programs last week by issuing a 4-4 decision, which allows a federal court’s injunction barring implementation of two programs to remain in place. These amnesty programs, Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) and an expanded version of President Obama’s (equally unconstitutional, in the opinion of many) 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA+) would have grantedde facto amnesty and work authorization to an estimated 4.7 million illegal aliens. The split decision upholds the rule of law and helps preserve the separation of powers our founders wrote into the Constitution. Despite the highly politicized nature of the immigration debate, half of the  Supreme Court Justices demonstrated deep concerns with the executive overreach of power.

 

Though they did not issue an opinion in the case, United States v. Texas, the justices clearly found sufficient reason to believe that President Obama has violated the ‘Take Care Clause of the Constitution, Art. II, §3.,’ that mandates the president take care that the nation’s laws be faithfully executed. It’s noteworthy that the president likely suspected that his attempt to rewrite immigration law through an executive amnesty would be ruled unconstitutional, which is why he admitted on 22 occasions prior to granting the amnesty that he lacked the power to do so.   

 

The case now goes back to U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen in Texas who will hear the case on its merits. Hanen issued the original injunction in February 2015 on a procedural matter, but strongly intimated that Texas and the other 25 states that sued to prevent DAPA and DACA+ from taking effect would win on the merits. In the meantime, FAIR urged Congress to step off the sidelines and reclaim its constitutional authority to set immigration policy.