FLAGGED FOR PHOTO

This month, the Supreme Court heard arguments in United States v. Texas, a case in which Texas, along with a supporting cast of states, is challenging President Barack Obama’s executive orders (DAPA and expansion of DACA) deferring deportation for around four million undocumented immigrants. In November, the lower court upheld the district court’s granting of an injunction, blocking the policy from taking effect.

The acts do not legalize the presence of those here illegally but highlight the president’s discretion in enforcing the law. However, the costs imposed on state governments to cover certain benefits have led many to argue that the administration overstepped its authority under the “Take Care Clause” of the constitution, changing the law rather than simply making a decision on “faithfully executing” it. It has divided the country along political lines, with the case set to have a large impact on immigration and executive power.

In reading through the transcripts of the oral arguments, it seems as if the case may be headed for a 4-4 split. Although this outcome would cause the lower court’s granting of the injunction to stand, Antonin Scalia likely would have been the much sought after fifth vote to give the decision presidential power. In his dissenting opinion in another case, Arizona v. United States, he hinted strongly that he disagreed with the actions taken by the Obama administration.

However, without the persuasive presence of Scalia (who wrote a book on persuading judges), it is entirely possible that a justice from what is considered to be the conservative wing of the court may float to the liberal side, as John Roberts did in the Obamacare case from 2012 (NFIB v. Sebelius) and as Anthony Kennedy did in Obergefell v. Hodges, the same-sex marriage decision from last year. More telling, these two justices moved to the other side in the aforementioned Arizona case, siding with the federal government on a similar immigration enforcement issue. If that were to happen, the lower court’s ruling could be reversed, and the administration’s actions would be upheld, something that would be very popular among both Democrats and many Latinos.

If this happens, it is feared by some that executive authority will continue to be stretched and could continue to go past mere discretion. Many people in the country, including almost everyone on the left, would give pause to the idea of President Donald Trump being able to define what the “Take Care Clause” of the Constitution means to enforcement of the laws in the context of many issues, not just on his divisive immigration policies. They would argue that you can’t “make deals” when it comes to constitutional authority or the granting and separation of powers. Though Trump seems to make it clear that he would oppose the actions taken by President Obama, a Supreme Court decision upholding them may cause Trump to seek other means of circumventing the issue, a scenario that would leave the ruling in place, hanging over the discretion and authority of Trump during his time in office. On that day, liberals who view Scalia as a great but villainous mind may wish he was still around to use his own swagger as a preemptive strike on Trump’s ego and policy.

The decision will likely be handed down soon, and will definitely be remembered as one of the landmark cases from this term, no matter the outcome.