If anyone is “playing politics” with the Supreme Court, it is Sen. Lankford and his Republican colleagues, who are blocking Garland from even getting a hearing and a yes-or-no vote. America needs a fully staffed, fully functioning Supreme Court that can decide cases of profound importance to law enforcement and prosecutors who keep our nation safe, while ensuring that the people's constitutional rights are protected. It is time for Lankford to do his job and call for hearings and a vote.
You are here
When it comes to Supreme Court oral arguments, sometimes the justices’ questions feel more like answers with a question mark at the end. At oral argument in United States v. Texas, the questions asked by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy, the likely key votes in the case, seemed like real questions. Fortunately for proponents of the administration’s immigration executive action—which could prevent, on a temporary basis, millions of undocumented immigrants from being deported—the lawyers for the administration had good answers, and the lawyers on the other side didn’t. When it comes time for the justices to cast their votes in the case, they should do what the law requires and reject this challenge to the administration’s immigration initiatives.
Elizabeth Wydra, President of the Constitutional Accountability Center, who filed a brief in support of the government says she wouldn't write off the chief justice on the merits of the case or on the issue of standing.
"On the merits, Chief Justice Roberts' concerns seemed to be alleviated when the Solicitor General clarified that undocumented immigrants—given relief under the programs—are simply afforded deferred action but none the less are subject to removal proceedings at any time the executive changes its enforcement priorities," she said.
CAC's Elizabeth Wydra appeared on KCRW' "To The Point" show to discuss the landmark Supreme Court immigration case United States v. Texas.
The lawyer representing the House “certainly does not represent the whole Congress serving today, much less the prior Congresses that wrote America’s immigration laws,” wrote former Rep. Howard Berman (R-Cal.) and Elizabeth Wydra, the president of the liberal Constitutional Accountability Center. Wydra’s organization, which has been involved in the case for longer than the House has, helped co-author a brief on behalf of Berman and a bipartisan coalition of former members of Congress who took part of the deliberations and drafting of key parts of the immigration code...
"John Roberts has consistently voted to close the courthouse doors. He's consistently voted to limit parties' ability to sue," said Brianne Gorod of the liberal Constitutional Accountability Center. "If he were to change his prior views on standing here ... it might look like his views on standing were being driven not by the law but by his view of the politics of the case."
“A 4-4 decision would leave a very complicated and confusing scenario in place,” said Brianne Gorod, chief counsel at the Constitutional Accountability Center.
If Congress granted the president that kind of broad authority, then it's legal and constitutional, said Brianne J. Gorod, chief counsel at the Constitutional Accountability Center. "If the court concludes, as I think it will and should, that these executive actions are consistent with the laws passed by Congress, then it necessarily follows that they are consistent with the Constitution," she said.
CAC's Brianne Gorod appeared on Slate's Amicus podcast to discuss the upcoming Supreme Court immigration case, United States v. Texas.
Brianne J. Gorod, chief counsel for the Constitutional Accountability Center — which supports upholding the president’s executive orders — noted that the court has already ruled that the executive branch has broad authority to implement immigration policy in a 2012 decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts — both appointed by Republicans. If either takes a different view now, it could be perceived as politically — and not constitutionally — motivated, Gorod said. “I believe (they) will find, as all the justices should, that these executive actions are entirely consistent with Supreme Court precedent,” Gorod said.
Although a 4-4 split would block the plan, probably until Obama leaves office in January, it wouldn’t definitively resolve the underlying issues. Proponents of the plan could try to re-open the issue by filing suit in a different part of the country, said Brianne Gorod, chief counsel of the Constitutional Accountability Center, which is backing the administration in the case. "A 4-4 decision would leave a very complicated and confusing scenario in place," Gorod said. That "is just one more reason why it is very unlikely that his court is going to end up splitting 4-4."
“He cares very much about the politicization of the courts," says Brianne Gorod, chief counsel for the liberal Constitutional Accountability Center.