Justice Scalia, father of nine and one of the longest-serving Supreme Court justices in history, was found dead on Saturday at the age of 79 in a West Texas ranch. His death could spell the end for the long-time power balance on the Supreme Court of four conservative justices, four liberal justices, and a moderate. But does it also spell the end for the states’ arguments in United States v. Texas, the immigration case pending before the Court? Cato Institute legal associate Randal Meyer explains:
JM: What is at stake in Texas? From what I understand, this goes far beyond immigration policy.
RM: In Texas, the Court took up the federal government’s appeal of a case that 26 states brought against President Obama’s executive actions on immigration. They allege that President Obama exceeded his executive authority by granting temporary legal status of a sort to certain classes of immigrants under the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA). Note that the lawsuit does not challenge the president’s ability to establish policy priorities regarding whom to deport, which guidance was announced at the same time in November 2014. It also doesn’t challenge the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) from two years before.
Without a solid showing from the conservative wing of the Court, the decision inU.S. v. Texas, if made on constitutional grounds, would give the president unilateral authority to suspend and rewrite statutes at his pleasure.
Read the entire piece here at Forbes
This piece originally appeared in Forbes