One of the most high-profile cases in recent years has been the lawsuit from the State of Texas and other co-plaintiff states against the Obama administration’s amnesty program. The suit was filed several years ago and made its way through the district court in Texas, to the Fifth Circuit, all the way to the Supreme Court.
Now, the case is finally closed, and the Obama administration has lost its case in the fight to use executive fiat to grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.
HotAir has more:
The White House lost on its fight over Barack Obama’s executive orders on immigration when the Supreme Court had nine members, and it won’t get a second chance with the eight remaining. On its first day back in session, the high court denied a rehearing request in US et al v Texas et al, the biggest fight between Washington and the states on enforcement of immigration statutes.
This decision leaves the loss in place, and also leaves Obama and his activism with no tools left to intrude on legislative jurisdiction. Had Obama worked in more good faith on this issue rather than leveraging it for cheap demagoguery, he might have found a compromise with Congress. For that matter, if Obama cared about this issue apart from cheap demagoguery, he would have prioritized immigration reform while his party controlled Congress, rather than backing a useless and expensive stimulus package and the disastrous ObamaCare legislation. He might have made himself and Democrats a lot more popular in midterm elections, too.
This closes the books for Obama on immigration. He lost, mostly by forfeit.
The Court could have chosen to rehear the case when a ninth member is placed on the bench, but alas such was not the case. The Court split the decision by a 4-4 vote, which left in place the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit intact, but did not create a national precedent.
The Solicitor General for the Obama administration stated that the Supreme Court should rehear the case to protect millions of undocumented aliens from being deported (as the law states they should be). Basically, this amounts to asking the Court to affirm lawlessness.
As USA Today reported:
The tie vote on immigration left intact a preliminary injunction that stopped the program in its tracks in February 2015, after Texas and 25 other states claimed Obama lacked the authority to circumvent Congress. The case is back in federal district court before the judge who issued the original injunction. A reversal there is considered unlikely.
The Supreme Court made the right decision here. Lawlessness cannot be tolerated in a civilized society. The rule of law must be upheld in all cases, and if a given administration does not like the existing set of laws, it must work with Congress to change them. But the non-enforcement of existing laws is a threat to our republic.
Source: The Federalist Papers