On April 18, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in United States v. Texas, the lawsuit challenging President Obama’s executive actions on immigration. The case concerns a program that President Obama announced in November of 2014 called Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, or DAPA. This program would allow more than four million unauthorized and undocumented immigrants who are the parents of citizens or lawful permanent residents to apply for a program that would spare them from deportation and provide them work permits. President Obama issued these actions in response to Congress’ inactivity in dealing with immigration reform. Along with DAPA, President Obama announced an expansion to the existing program Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, which is aimed at non-citizens who came to the country as children. A topic of argument in the case is whether or not the President has overstepped his authority by announcing these programs and taken over something that would normally be handled by Congress.

Most of the April 18 arguments suggest that the court will break in a 4-4 split along party lines. A 4-4 tie would uphold a Texas appeals court ruling that blocks the program and denies President Obama the chance to revive it while he remains in office, therefore allowing a renewed challenge to the plan once the court is back at capacity.

To read more information about the case, please visit the articles below:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/19/us/politics/supreme-court-immigration.html?_r=0

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/18/politics/supreme-court-immigration-executive-actions-texas/

To read the transcript of the court proceedings, click here.

Rachel is an intern with the firm and is not a practicing attorney.

About The Author