Richard Wolf

USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court will give President Obama a final shot at implementing his plan to shield more than 4 million undocumented immigrants from deportation.

The justices agreed Tuesday to hear the administration's contention that Obama has the power to change immigration policy without going through Congress.

Texas immigrants rest case with Supreme Court

The court's agreement to hear the appeal to a challenge brought by Texas and 25 other states led by Republican governors will add fuel to the heated debate over illegal immigration in the 2016 presidential campaign. The case will be heard in April and decided in June, a month before the two parties' political conventions.

A decision reversing the appeals court would give the Department of Homeland Security more than six months to begin implementing the policy before Obama's term ends in January 2017. At that point, it would face likely extension from a Democratic president or extinction from a Republican.

Supreme Court refuses to hear another Obamacare case

Immigration activists sounded optimistic that the Supreme Court would allow the program to proceed, arguing that it was originally blocked only because conservative judges were the ones who heard the case at lower levels.

"We believe the Supreme Court will use common sense to advance the common good. Justice is finally near," said Frank Sharry, executive director of America's Voice.

Opponents of the program said Obama's lawyers will not be able to escape the fact that Congress is responsible for crafting the nation's immigration enforcement laws, and the president did not get its approval to overhaul them in such dramatic fashion.

"President Obama is not a king, and impatient presidents don't get to change the law," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law & Justice. "This executive overreach is both unlawful and unconstitutional."

While the case to date has hinged on whether Obama violated the law, the justices added a constitutional question. They said both sides must address whether Obama's action violates the "Take Care Clause" of the Constitution, which states that the president must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

That could be a bad sign for the administration, because another issue is whether Texas and the other states even have standing to sue. They claim they do because Obama's action would force them to issue driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants at state cost. By adding the constitutional claim, the justices may be signalling they agree with the states' position on standing.

Obama unveiled the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) in 2014 as an extension of his earlier policy delaying the threat of deportation for about 770,000 undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children. The new plan would broaden that program and add protections for about 4.3 million adults with children who are U.S. citizens or lawful residents. It would make them eligible for work permits and a host of health care, disability and retirement benefits.

Highlights from Obama's immigration plan

“Many individuals who are eligible for DAPA … live in fear every single day, because they are constantly at risk of being detained and deported,” said Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center. The program would give them temporary protection from deportation for three years.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in November upheld Texas' challenge to the deferred deportation plan. A divided panel ruled 2-1 that the power the administration claimed "would allow illegal aliens to receive the benefits of lawful presence solely on account of their children's immigration status, without complying with any of the requirements ... that Congress has deliberately imposed."

Judge Carolyn Dineen King dissented, arguing that the deferred action program was an "exercise of prosecutorial discretion" beyond the reach of federal court judges.

The administration said the lower court ruling denies parents "who have lived in this country for years, would pass a background check, are not priorities for removal, and have a son or daughter who is a U.S. citizen or a lawful permanent resident.''

"Deferred action would give these parents and children the dignity of coming forward and being counted," the Justice Department argued in asking the court to hear the case. "Without work authorization, they are more likely to work for employers who will hire them illegally, often at below-market wages, thereby hurting American workers and giving unscrupulous employers an unfair advantage."

The coalition of Republican governors, led by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, contends that Obama lacks the authority to protect about one-third of the nation's undocumented immigrants by executive fiat.

Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, says that lack of authority extends to other programs as well. He is creating a task force to examine examples of what he calls "executive overreach."

Obama's "decision to ignore the limits placed on his power and act unilaterally to rewrite our nation’s immigration laws threatens the separation of powers and its checks and balances," Goodlatte said.

And Republicans running to replace Obama were quick speak out against his executive actions in the wake of the justices' announcement. Win or lose in court, Sen. Marco Rubio said, "As president, I will end them."

At the White House, officials praised the high court's intervention. “We have a strong argument, both in terms of the legal grounds and on the impact, the positive impact that these executive actions will have on communities across the country,” press secretary Josh Earnest said.

This will be the second time in four years that the high court has heard a major immigration case in the midst of a presidential campaign.

In 2012, the justices upheld a provision of an Arizona law requiring state and local police to check the immigration status of people they stop or detain if a "reasonable suspicion" exists that they're in the country illegally. But it struck down three other provisions that created new state crimes targeting illegal immigrants; the panel said Arizona had usurped federal authority in the area of immigration enforcement.

In the new case, the justices already have done the Obama administration one favor: They ordered Texas to respond to the Justice Department's petition without a delay that would have meant the case could not be heard until the 2016 term begins in October. That would have pushed the court's ruling to 2017, after Obama has left office.

Contributing: Alan Gomez

Supreme Court timetable gives President Obama an opening on immigration