United States v. Texas: A Primer on the Supreme Court Immigration Case

supreme_court_rotator_lgToday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case United States v. Texas, which questions the constitutionality of President Barack Obama’s unilateral grant of de facto amnesty to almost 5 million illegal aliens. In the case, Texas and 25 other states contend that by implementing these programs, the president overstepped his legal bounds. The Constitution states that the president shall “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” and that Congress “shall have the power” to “establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” At issue are several executive actions taken by the president to shield illegal immigrants from deportation and offer benefits and services on what is alleged to be a temporary, but renewable, basis. Regarding this case, FAIR President Dan Stein calls it “the most important” one “the Court will decide this year.” 

Read the background on this monumental case.

avatar About FAIR Staff

Content posted by current and previous members of FAIR staff.

Comments

  1. The Supreme Court

    Is not an entity to replace elections or populists will….it morphed into that role in error….

  2. avatar Leland says:

    Justice Sotomayer was being her usual disingenuous self today. She said “The answer is if Congress really wanted to have an economic impact, it would allot the money necessary to deport them, but it hasn’t.”

    She’s setting up the false straw man that there are only two choices here. Either give amnesty or do massive deportations. But she fails, deliberately of course, to acknowledge that there would be no need for massive deportations if we would simply enforce the laws already on the books, which would discourage people from staying. Reward bad behavior and it will continue.

    What she is endorsing, because you know where she is going to come down on it with that line of questioning, is that we have to do an amnesty and if it’s by executive orders it’s fine with her. Which of course only encourages more illegal entry. She’s not interested in the rule of law, she’s interested in an agenda.

    • avatar SecBorders says:

      Sotomayer is supposed to defend our Constitution, not shred the Constitution and create an even more powerful and unaccountable Presidency just so she can endorse a government policy she agrees with.

  3. avatar SecBorders says:

    I hope the Supreme Court will defend our Constitution, and not focus on whether or not they think illegals should be given amnesty.