SCOTUS Already Upheld Broad Executive Discretion on Immigration

Ian Millhiser at ThinkProgress points out something important about both the Republican freakout and potential (and actual) lawsuits against Obama over his executive orders on immigration: The Supreme Court only a couple years ago upheld broad executive branch discretion on immigration, with two of the court’s conservative members in the majority.

The case was Arizona v United States, the suit involving that state’s infamous Act 1070 and its draconian immigration laws. Justice Kennedy wrote the decision, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Breyer, Ginsburg and Sotomayor (Kagan had recused herself due to previous work on the case as Solicitor General). That ruling struck down some parts of the law as a violation of federal authority over immigration and said, in part:

Congress has specified which aliens may be removed from the United States and the procedures for doing so. Aliens may be removed if they were inadmissible at the time of entry, have been convicted of certain crimes, or meet other criteria set by federal law. Removal is a civil, not criminal, matter. A principal feature of the removal system is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials. Federal officials, as an initial matter, must decide whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all. If removal proceedings commence, aliens may seek asylum and other discretionary relief allowing them to remain in the country or at least to leave without formal removal…

Discretion in the enforcement of immigration law embraces immediate human concerns. Unauthorized workers trying to support their families, for example, likely pose less danger than alien smugglers or aliens who commit a serious crime. The equities of an individual case may turn on many factors, including whether the alien has children born in the United States, long ties to the community, or a record of distinguished military service. Some discretionary decisions involve policy choices that bear on this Nation’s international relations. Returning an alien to his own country may be deemed inappropriate even where he has committed a removable offense or fails to meet the criteria for admission. The foreign state may be mired in civil war, complicit in political persecution, or enduring conditions that create a real risk that the alien or his family will be harmed upon return. The dynamic nature of relations with other countries requires the Executive Branch to ensure that enforcement policies are consistent with this Nation’s foreign policy with respect to these and other realities.

Kagan would almost certainly have been a 6th vote for broad executive branch discretion, which is a very strong majority on a court with the same makeup it had then. Legally, the case for the president’s authority on this is pretty much unassailable.

"I have a solution. Since, these statues are obvious there so we don't forget history, ..."

Barton’s Bizarre Diatribe on Confederate Statues
"Well, I would make more edits, but Disqus doesn't let me change other people's comments. ..."

Barton’s Bizarre Diatribe on Confederate Statues
""What does God need with an irony meter?" ~ Captain Kirk, Startrek V: The Final ..."

Barton’s Bizarre Diatribe on Confederate Statues
"What is he on about? Doesn't he know that all of those guys with torches ..."

Cernovich: Charlottesville was Government Plot to ..."
Follow Us!
POPULAR AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    THAT DOESNT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT ALL THAT AMNESTY HES GRANTING!!!

  • eric

    Ian Millhiser at ThinkProgress points out something important about both the Republican freakout and potential (and actual) lawsuits against Obama over his executive orders on immigration

    Are there any actual lawsuits against him for his recently announced immigration policy? Boehner’s lawsuit is over ACA, not immigration policy. Even though the timing (announced the day after Obama’s speech) could easily mislead the public into thinking its over immigration.

  • John Pieret

    eric:

    Have you forgotten the Arpaio/Klayman suit so soon? After all, such legal brilliance is hard to forget!

    Arizona also holds that state governments are preempted by Federal law from imposing their own immigration policies, which should go for county sheriffs too, which should make the Arpaio/Klayman suit disappear even faster.

  • busterggi

    Damned activist Republican-appointed judges!

  • Kevin Kehres

    Bubutbutbutbut…BROWN PEOPLE!!11ELEVENTY!!!

  • David Eriksen

    re eric @2

    Are there any actual lawsuits against him for his recently announced immigration policy?

    Governor-elect Abbot here in Texas claims to be planning one.

  • David Eriksen

    Abbott, even