Republican lawmakers called on the Supreme Court Monday to reject President Obama’s policy to refuse to deport four million illegal immigrants, saying the court has an obligation to uphold Congress’ role in the Constitution’s balance of powers.
House Speaker Paul Ryan said that not rejecting the administration’s policy would itself amount to a radical revision of the legislative process.
“The Constitution is clear: Presidents don’t write laws, Congress does. Presidents may disagree with the laws, but they are not free to ignore those laws and have unelected bureaucrats write new ones. This is a threat to self-government itself,” the Wisconsin Republican said.
The calls came the day the eight Supreme Court justices heard oral arguments in U.S. v. Texas, a case challenging Obama’s policy. The arguments appeared to indicate that the justices were evenly split on the issue. A deadlock, if it happens, would mean that a lower court ruling that halted the policy would stand.
A key issue in the case is whether the administration overstepped its authority when it announced the policy, officially called Deferred Action for Parental Accountability or “DAPA.” U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, the administration’s representative before the court, argued that the president was merely engaging in “prosecutorial discretion” regarding how it would enforce the immigration laws. Texas Solicitor General Tom Keller, representing the 26 mostly Republican states challenging the policy, argued that it went beyond discretion since it covered an entire class of 4 million people.
Democratic lawmakers said the president’s unilateral policy was justified because Congress has not passed legislation. “I’m confident #SCOTUS will uphold @POTUS’ actions&I hope Congress will work to pass #ImmigrationReform to fix our broken system once&for all,” tweeted Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., who was present for the oral arguments. Durbin is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Rep. Suzan DelBene, D-Wash., argued that upholding the policy would encourage Congress to act on immigration to assert its role in the balance of powers. “Doing so would help create a climate where Democrats and Republicans can finally come together to work on a comprehensive solution that reduces visa backlogs, creates an earned pathway to citizenship and keeps families together,” she said.
GOP lawmakers said that not passing legislation didn’t justify the administration’s actions. “The Constitution vests legislative authority in Congress, not the president, who has attempted nonetheless to rewrite the law unilaterally. I applaud the court for its willingness to consider this case and hope the justices will hold the Obama administration accountable to the law and to the Constitution,” said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Rep. Lou Barletta, R-Pa., noted that Obama himself said on numerous occasions — the lawmaker put the figure at 22 — prior to implementing the policy that he lacked the authority to do it. Barletta pointed to the Constitution’s clause stating that the president must “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”
“The president has repeatedly ignored Congress and stretched executive authority beyond its breaking point, which is why we have turned to the courts to restore order. The Constitution is very clear about the roles of the president and the Congress. President Obama has clearly overstepped his role,” the lawmaker said.
Sen. Ben Sasse, D-Neb., said that circumventing Congress ultimately “disenfranchised” voters. “This is how self-government works: if members of Congress pass bad laws, voters get to fire them. But when unelected bureaucrats ignore or unilaterally rewrite laws, voters are disenfranchised and lose confidence in the American Experiment,” he said.
