The U.S. Supreme Court this morning has agreed to hear arguments in a Texas-led lawsuit challenging President Obama’s executive action that aimed to expand “deferred action” on immigration.
In response to the high court’s decision to hear merits of the case, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said, “In deciding to hear this case, the Supreme Court recognizes the importance of the separation of powers. There are limits to the President’s authority, and those limits enacted by Congress were exceeded when the President unilaterally sought to grant ‘lawful presence’ to more than 4 million unauthorized immigrants.”
Paxton says their argument against the President’s action isn’t about the policies that the president has put in place.
“We’re challenging this because, we don’t believe he has the constitutional authority to just change law. So it’s a broader context than just immigration, this is about can a president just unilaterally change law," Paxton explained.
The national office of the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund or MALDEF is representing three Texas immigrant families that would be potential applicants for the president’s deferred action program.
MALDEF’s Executive Director Thomas Saenz says these parents are non-enforcement priorities, meaning they’re not being targeted by the federal government for removal from the country based on the current deportation guidelines.
"And therefore should be identified, registered, given work authorization, because they are not going to be removed," Saenz explained.
Texas is leading a 26-state coalition that has signed on to the constitutional challenge. The court could return with a decision by June.
