WASHINGTON—The 26-state challenge to the Obama administration’s
immigration policy, scheduled for Supreme Court argument next Monday comes
wrapped in rhetoric about the separation of powers and brims with implications
for the November elections.
But the outcome may hinge on something more mundane: Texas drivers license fees.
That is because the states’ legal ability—known as standing—to
bring the case rests on Texas’ claim that it would be required to
subsidize the cost of licenses to people qualifying for the Obama administration’s
plan, called the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans, which would
provide work authorizations and a temporary reprieve on deportation to
millions of illegal immigrants whose children are U.S. citizens.
Texas charges $24 for a license, but says it costs nearly $200 to process
each application. Because immigrants with temporary status can ask for
licenses, “Texas therefore would lose millions of dollars if even
a small fraction of DAPA-eligible aliens applied for driver’s licenses,”
the state said in a legal brief.
The Justice Department counters that Texas has no business being in court at all.
“The cost to Texas of subsidizing temporary visitor driver’s
licenses for aliens—is entirely self-generated,” the government
said in a brief suggesting that Texas could charge the full cost of issuing
licenses. “If such self-imposed harms were sufficient, then states
could force disputes over a wide swath of federal policies.”
The Supreme Court has been taking pains to reach consensus decisions following
the February death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, which left
the court with eight justices and increased the chance of 4-4 splits.
The standing issue—one of tremendous importance to several of the
court’s justices, including Chief JusticeJohn Roberts—could offer an escape route to avoid a potential tie.
“I think this is going to end up being another civil procedure case
where we’re talking about what standing means, with nothing to do
with immigration altogether,” said Kit Johnson, a law professor
at the University of Oklahoma.
Some 4.1 million parents of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents
could benefit from the Obama plan.
Immigrants filled workshops at churches, community centers and schools
across the country to learn about the policy after it was announced last
year. Among those who attended an information session was a 28-year-old
Mexican woman involved in the case and identified publicly as Jane Doe
2. She has spent half her life in McAllen, Texas, where she was brought
illegally by her parents.
In an interview, she said she had envisioned “finally”—getting
a driver’s license, working legally to support her two U.S.-born
young children and living without fear of being deported. Then her hopes
were disrupted by the legal challenge, she said.
Two of her brothers are in deportation proceedings, she said. She rarely
ventures more than a few miles from her home, to avoid passing a border-patrol
checkpoint. “I feel imprisoned,” she said. “I am not
a criminal; I’m a hard worker.”
Last year, she and two other immigrants entered the court case on the side
of the Obama administration. She said she makes ends meet by doing odd
jobs. “I feel frustrated that I can’t take advantage of opportunities
here to give my children a good life,” she said.
President Barack Obama’s plan, announced in November 2014, is limited
to people with clean records whose children are U.S. citizens or lawful
permanent residents. The administration said the program was similar to
temporary actions by previous administrations to assist specific alien
populations lacking legal status and simply formalizes the discretion
the president already holds over immigration enforcement.
A federal district judge in Brownsville, Texas, approved the Texas challenge
on the drivers-license basis, and in February 2015 issued a nationwide
injunction barring the program’s implementation. Last November,
the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans upheld the injunction,
based on the claim that the Department of Homeland Security failed to
follow proper administrative procedures in issuing the policy.
The Texas coalition contends that Mr. Obama acted contrary to federal law.
By providing work permits, the administration would create “precisely
the sort of magnet for unlawful immigration that Congress sought to avoid,”
its legal brief said.
“The job of the president is not to make law,” Texas Attorney
GeneralKen Paxton, a Republican, said in an interview. “He is supposed
to execute the laws that Congress puts in front of him.”
The GOP-controlled House of Representatives took the unusual step of filing
a brief supporting the challenge and the Supreme Court granted it time
to argue against the administration next week.
“The executive does not have the power to authorize—let alone
facilitate—the prospective violation of the immigration laws on
a massive class-wide scale,” the House GOP brief said.
Legal views in the case largely divide on partisan lines. A Democratic-led
brief filed by 39 senators and 186 representatives backed the administration,
as did another from 16 Democratic-leaning states and the District of Columbia.
Those states argue that Texas provides a “distorted picture”
of the immigration plan’s impact at the state level and said the
policy would provide “substantial economic, social welfare, and
public safety benefits.”
A victory for the administration wouldn’t conclusively determine
the lawfulness of the deferred-action plan, but it would allow it to take
effect while Texas litigates the matter at a trial court. Secretary of
Homeland Security Jeh Johnson said the department is prepared to implement
it quickly if the injunction is lifted.
If the court deadlocks 4-4, the lower court injunctions would remain in
place, likely freezing the program for the remainder of the Obama administration
and into the next presidency.
REVILLA LAW FIRM, P.A.
Immigration lawyers located in Miami, FL
The immigration attorneys at Revilla Law Firm, P.A., represent clients
on all immigration matters from family-based residency and removal proceedings,
to employment-based immigration cases, and much more. Antonio G. Revilla
III is the founder of our immigration firm and is a Former U.S. Immigration
Prosecutor with almost 25 years of legal experience. Mr. Revilla and his
team of highly qualified attorneys will aggressively represent you and
fight to keep you and your family members in the United States.
Contact us today to schedule a free in-office consultation, where Mr. Revilla
will thoroughly evaluate your immigration case.
Call (305) 858-2323 or toll free (877) 854-2323
Even though our Miami immigration law firm is located in Miami, we can
represent you anywhere in the United States.
You can also email us directly at: firstname.lastname@example.org