Thursday, June 23, 2016

Reactions to Supreme Court deadlocks, shooting down Obama's executive grant of amnesty.

Today the Supreme Court deadlocked on President Barack Obama's program that by executive order granted amnesty to as many as  5 million illegal aliens. The State of Texas joined by 25 other states, had brought suit challenging the legality of the Presidents executive order and  prevailed in district court. The Obama administration had appealed the lower federal courts ruling to the Supreme Court. The 4 to 4 tie in the Supreme Court means the lower court ruling stands.

Here is how the Tennessee reports the story: Deadlocked Supreme Court blocks Obama on immigration

For more reactions:  
Hillary Clinton slams 'heartbreaking' immigration ruling

Corker Statement on Supreme Court Blocking Obama Immigration Executive Actions  
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) today released the following statement after a 4-4 decision by the United States Supreme Court affirmed an appeals court ruling that blocks President Obama’s executive actions on immigration.

“I strongly oppose President Obama’s unilateral actions, which effectively changed immigration laws without going through Congress, and I am pleased that the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court ruling blocking these actions from moving forward,” said Corker. “Today’s result is a victory for separation of powers and the democratic process.”

The Supreme Court took up the case (United States of America v. State of Texas) after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in November of 2015 affirmed a preliminary injunction by a federal district court in Brownsville, Texas, blocking the Obama administration from moving forward with its executive actions on immigration.

In April 2016, Corker joined U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and 41 other Senate Republicans in filing an amicus brief in the Supreme Court in support of a challenge by a majority of the nation’s governors and attorneys general of the states, including Tennessee, to the Obama administration’s November 2014 executive actions on immigration.

Blackburn Applauds United States v. Texas Decision  

Press Release - Congressman Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) issued the following statement in response to the Supreme Court’s 4-4 decision in United States v. Texas, which upholds the lower court’s decision that the president’s use of executive action to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants is unlawful:

“Today’s Supreme Court decision proves that Congress should pass and the President should sign H.R. 5272, the Blackburn-Cruz DACA language.

“For years I have fought to pass legislation to end the DACA program. This is a win for the Constitution and for the American people. President Obama’s use of a pen and phone to rewrite immigration laws from the oval office to implement executive amnesty was lawless from day one. SCOTUS has sent King Obama a powerful message,” Blackburn said.


As part of the Department of Homeland Security Funding bill last year, the House approved, by a vote of 218-209, Congressman Blackburn’s proposal to freeze the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. The House first approved her legislation, H.R. 5272, which would also prevent President Obama from taking future executive actions to expand amnesty for illegal aliens, on August 1, 2014 by a vote of 216-192.

On January 19, the Supreme Court agrees to hear United States v. Texas, but adds its own question for the parties to consider: Did the president’s actions violate his constitutional duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed”?

On March 1, Speaker Ryan announces that he will ask the House, as an institution uniquely qualified to answer the Court’s question, to vote on a resolution authorizing him to file a brief defending Article I: “The president is not permitted to write law—only Congress is.”

On March 17, the House adopts H. Res. 639, authorizing Speaker Ryan to file a brief. Speaking on the floor shortly before the vote, Ryan says, “Members who are making immigration policy arguments are missing the entire point here. This comes down to a much more fundamental question. It is about the integrity of our Constitution.”

On April 4, the House files its brief, setting forth why Congress—and only Congress—is empowered to write the laws.

On April 8, the Supreme Court grants the House’s request for 15 minutes of time during oral arguments. Erin Murphy, partner at Bancroft, PLLC will argue on behalf of the House, which is being represented pro bono in this matter.

On April 18, the House of Representatives presented its oral argument to the Supreme Court.

Stumble Upon Toolbar
My Zimbio
Top Stories

No comments:

Post a Comment