The Supreme Court recently heard and decided the case of USA v Texas. This lawsuit was instituted by twenty six states, challenging the constitutionality of President Obama’s immigration executive actions, including the 2014 executive order creating DAPA (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans). This program provided deferred action from removal (or deportation) to law-abiding immigrants. About 4 million immigrant parents of children born in the United States would have qualified under the program, allowing them to remain in the U.S for up to 3 years.

President Obama vs. the Supreme Court

The primary question before the Supreme Court involved the extent of the president’s power to interpret and implement federal laws in a manner consistent with his own policy goals. Article II of the constitution obligates the president to ensure that laws are faithfully executed, a provision with its roots in the American Revolution. Another controversial issue raised by this case is the tradition of prosecutorial discretion, or the ability of the executive branch to determine whether to prosecute individuals who are accused of violating federal law. Could the executive branch rely on a traditional exercise of discretion in delaying deportation in the least crucial immigration cases?

Historic Precedence

The Obama administration relied upon the 1985 ruling in Heckler v. Chaney to support the constitutionality of DAPA. In that case, the Supreme Court found that the Food & Drug Administration could legally exercise discretion not to enforce a governing statute. However, the court further observed that the principal of prosecutorial discretion is not unlimited. For instance, this principal cannot be employed to justify a broad policy decision that would exclude an agency’s legal duties (e.g., the executive branch is not allowed to stop enforcing duly enacted federal drug policies). The Supreme Court therefore needed to decided in USA v. Texas whether Obama’s immigration policy was akin to a prosecutor refusing to press charges in certain cases, or whether it was a broad policy decision that abdicated the executive branch’s constitutional duty to faithfully execute the law.

Supreme Court Deadlock

Following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, only 8 Justices of the Supreme Court heard the case of USA v. Texas. The court deadlocked on the constitutional questions before it, with a split vote of 4 to 4. Unfortunately, this amounts to a non-decision and leaves in place a lower appeals court ruling permanently blocking President Obama’s executive actions on immigration. As a result of the Supreme Court’s failure to affirmatively decide this important issue, millions of law-abiding residents who would have been eligible for relief under DAPA may one day face deportation despite having U.S. born children with lives here and who need their parents for support.

At the Atlanta attorney offices of Brownstein & Nguyen, we have decades of experience handling matters for thousands of clients in the complicated area of immigration law. If you, a family member or friend need help with legal immigration, contact our offices for a case evaluation.