Civil and Human Rights

Obama administration asks 9-member SCOTUS to rehear immigration lawsuit

Page A4

By Aaron Nelsen

The Justice Department on Monday filed a petition asking that the full nine-member U.S. Supreme Court rehear the blockbuster lawsuit against President Barack Obama’s plan on immigration.

 

Last month, the high court deadlocked in a 4-4 tie, leaving in place an appeals court ruling that blocked the president’s policy on immigration that would grant more than 4 million immigrants deportation reprieves and allow them to work in the country.

 

Justice Antonin Scalia’s death earlier this year left the court with only eight justices.

 

Though it is rare for the Supreme Court to grant a rehearing, Acting Solicitor General Ian Gershengorn argued that because the same thorny issues in the immigration case could arise again there is “a strong need for definitive resolution” by the high court.

 

“Unless the Court resolves this case in a precedential manner, a matter of ‘great national importance’ involving an ‘unprecedented and momentous’ injunction barring implementation of the Guidance will have been effectively resolved for the country as a whole by a court of appeals that has divided twice, with two judges voting for petitioners and two for respondent States,” Gershengorn wrote.

 

In November 2014, Obama announced the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program to shield millions of undocumented adults from deportation. Also under Obama’s initiative, an existing Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, which was implemented in 2012, would be expanded.

 

The Texas-led challenge, joined by 25 other states, asserts that Obama overstepped his authority in launching the deferred action for parents program and in expanding the children’s program. Texas has argued the program would force the state to spend millions on schools, health care and law enforcement.

 

U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen ruled in February 2015 that the administration had violated the Administrative Procedure Act by circumventing public hearings in the federal rule-making process when it announced its immigration policy. The decision was upheld by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last in November, which suggested that Obama had also exceeded his authority by granting benefits to immigrants.

 

“If the court doesn’t designate for rehearing, when there’s nine justices there will be new constraints placed on the executive, and an important national program blocked without the Supreme Court weighing in and declaring what the law is,” said Elizabeth Wydra, president of the liberal Constitutional Accountability Center.

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
December 5, 2024

Podcast (We the People): Can Tennessee Ban Medical Transitions for Transgender Minors?

National Constitution Center
A Tennessee law prohibits transgender minors from receiving gender transition surgery and hormone therapy. Professor Kurt...
Civil and Human Rights
December 4, 2024

RELEASE: Supreme Court Should Not Turn Equal Protection Clause on its Head in Case about Medical Care for Transgender Adolescents

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in United States...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Payan v. Los Angeles Community College District

In Payan v. Los Angeles Community College District, the Ninth Circuit is considering whether lost educational opportunities are compensable under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Supreme Court

Stanley v. City of Sanford

In Stanley v. City of Sanford, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Americans with Disabilities Act protects against disability discrimination with respect to retirement benefits distributed after employment. 
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Supreme Court

United States v. Skrmetti

In United States v. Skrmetti, the Supreme Court is considering whether Tennessee’s ban on providing gender-affirming medical care to transgender adolescents violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Civil and Human Rights
July 31, 2024

Supreme Court Allows Cities to Punish Homelessness

The Regulatory Review
At the end of its 2023-24 term, the U.S. Supreme Court issued several divided decisions...
By: Brian R. Frazelle