Term: 2015
Docket: 15-674
United States v. Texas
- Pro
15-674 UNITED STATES V. TEXAS DECISION BELOW: 2015 WL 6873190 IN ADDITION TO THE QUESTIONS PRESENTED BY THE PETITION, THE PARTIES ARE DIRECTED TO BRIEF AND ARGUE THE FOLLOWING QUESTION: “WHETHER THE GUIDANCE VIOLATES THE TAKE CARE CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION, ART. II, §3.” CERT. GRANTED 1/19/2016 QUESTION PRESENTED: The Department of Homeland Security has long engaged in "a regular practice * * * known as 'deferred action,"' in which the Secretary "exercis[es] [his] discretion" to forbear, "for humanitarian reasons or simply for [his] own convenience," from removing particular aliens from the United States. Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471, 483-484 (1999). On November 20, 2014, the Secretary issued a memorandum (Guidance) directing his subordinates to establish a process for considering deferred action for certain aliens who have lived in the United States for five years and either came here as children or already have children who are U.S. citizens or permanent residents. The questions presented are: 1. Whether a State that voluntarily provides a subsidy to all aliens with deferred action has Article III standing and a justiciable cause of action under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 500 et seq., to challenge the Guidance because it will lead to more aliens having deferred action. 2. Whether the Guidance is arbitrary and capricious or otherwise not in accordance with law. 3. Whether the Guidance was subject to the APA's notice-and-comment procedures. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 15-40238
The United States v. Texas case in 2015 was a significant legal battle over immigration policy. The Obama administration sought to implement the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) program, which would have granted deferred action status to certain undocumented immigrants who had lived in the U.S. since 2010 and had children who were American citizens or lawful permanent residents. However, Texas, along with twenty-five other states, challenged this executive action arguing that it bypassed Congress's authority on immigration laws and violated administrative procedures for implementing new rules. They also claimed they would face undue financial burdens from providing services to DAPA recipients. In February 2015, a federal judge issued an injunction preventing the implementation of DAPA while the lawsuit proceeded through courts. This decision was upheld by both a three-judge panel and then en banc by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals later that year. When appealed to Supreme Court in June 2016, due to Justice Scalia’s death earlier that year leaving only eight justices serving at time of ruling; resulted in a split decision (4-4). Consequently upholding lower court’s ruling without setting any nationwide precedent.
In the United States v. Texas case, there was no official dissenting opinion as the Supreme Court was split 4-4. However, it's important to note that this tie effectively upheld a lower court ruling which blocked President Obama’s executive actions on immigration. The original lawsuit argued that Obama overstepped his constitutional authority by unilaterally expanding deferred action programs for immigrants without proper legal documentation in the U.S., particularly those brought here as children and parents of citizens or lawful permanent residents. The deadlock decision meant millions of undocumented immigrants remained at risk for deportation and ineligible for work permits granted under Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA). It also underscored deep divisions within the court itself following Justice Antonin Scalia's death earlier in 2016.
