The U.S. Supreme Court (click here) will rule on President Barack Obama’s decision to defer deportation for as many as 5 million undocumented immigrants, agreeing to hear the administration’s appeal on one of the most contentious issues of his presidency.
The court will hear arguments in April, setting up a likely late-June ruling that will stoke what is already a fiery immigration debate in the presidential campaign.
A federal appeals court said Obama overstepped his authority in ordering the plan, which would let millions of immigrants apply for a reprieve from deportation and get work permits. The program, announced in November 2014 but yet to take effect, is being challenged by Texas and 25 other states, almost all led by Republicans.
In seeking Supreme Court review, Obama’s legal team said the appeals court’s “unprecedented and momentous” decision would strip the president of longstanding powers and give states an unwarranted right to challenge federal immigration policies in court.
“The court of appeals’ judgment enjoins nationwide a federal policy of great importance to federal law enforcement, to many states, and to millions of families with longstanding and close connections with this country,” U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli argued in the appeal....
The court will hear arguments in April, setting up a likely late-June ruling that will stoke what is already a fiery immigration debate in the presidential campaign.
A federal appeals court said Obama overstepped his authority in ordering the plan, which would let millions of immigrants apply for a reprieve from deportation and get work permits. The program, announced in November 2014 but yet to take effect, is being challenged by Texas and 25 other states, almost all led by Republicans.
In seeking Supreme Court review, Obama’s legal team said the appeals court’s “unprecedented and momentous” decision would strip the president of longstanding powers and give states an unwarranted right to challenge federal immigration policies in court.
“The court of appeals’ judgment enjoins nationwide a federal policy of great importance to federal law enforcement, to many states, and to millions of families with longstanding and close connections with this country,” U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli argued in the appeal....
Below is the Precedent from 1990. The USA has had an expansive agenda when it comes to the Undocumented. "W" built on this Executive Order to provide amnesty for 1.5 million undocumented. Unfortunately, the Republicans decided to change this and demands the order by President Obama be ended.
When the Supreme Court rules on the PRECEDENT from 1990, it will provide a language that protects the Presidents power while removing the expansion of number of the undocumented. It will serve as a guideline that may result in a better Executive Order before he leaves office.
Then again this is the 5th District and is known to use unconstitutional tweaks to inhibit progress. It may simply be overturned and the Executive Order will proceed.
President Obama never insisted the Executive Order has precedence after the 5th Appeals Court ruled. There are no undocumented in the USA that can lose status under this order.
When the Supreme Court rules on the PRECEDENT from 1990, it will provide a language that protects the Presidents power while removing the expansion of number of the undocumented. It will serve as a guideline that may result in a better Executive Order before he leaves office.
Then again this is the 5th District and is known to use unconstitutional tweaks to inhibit progress. It may simply be overturned and the Executive Order will proceed.
President Obama never insisted the Executive Order has precedence after the 5th Appeals Court ruled. There are no undocumented in the USA that can lose status under this order.
Los Angeles Times, Feb. 3, 1990: (click here) McNary’s directive provides a renewable, one-year shield against deportation to spouses and children under 18 who can establish that they have been living in the United States with a legal alien family member since Nov. 6, 1986, and have not been convicted of a felony or three misdemeanors in this country.
The policy will enable families to stay together while applications for permanent visas wind through a 10-year bureaucratic maze.
Under the old policy, children, but not spouses, of newly legalized aliens were eligible for such relief. No work authorization was provided. And regional INS directors had wide latitude to determine whether “humanitarian circumstances” were “compelling” enough to provide relief....
