Civil and Human Rights

Administration asks Supreme Court to rehear immigration case

By Lydia Wheeler

The Justice Department is asking the Supreme Court to rehear a case challenging President Obama’s executive actions on immigration.

 

The court was deadlocked 4-4 in its decision in June, leaving a lower court order standing that blocks a program allowing undocumented immigrants who are parents of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents to remain in the United States for three years and apply for work permits.

 

The decision also prevents the administration from otherwise expanding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program issued by Obama in 2012.

The case, U.S. v. Texas, is the most prominent to end in a tie since the unexpected passing of Justice Antonin Scalia in February. His death has left the court divided with an equal number of justices on the conservative and liberal wings; the Senate is refusing to consider Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland.

 

The Justice Department said the lower court’s preliminary injunction would now prevent the government from carrying out the programs nationwide. It urged the Supreme Court to revisit the case when it had a full bench of nine justices.

 

“There is no reason to expect that the district court would issue a permanent injunction that is narrower; and no other pending case challenges the Guidance,” the agency said in it’s petition.

 

“Unless the court resolves this case in a precedential manner, a matter of ‘great national importance’ involving an ‘unprecedented and momentous’ injunction barring implementation of the guidance will have been effectively resolved for the country as a whole by a court of appeals that has divided twice, with two judges voting for petitioners and two for respondent states.”

 

The DOJ argued that there have been cases in the past where the justices revisited a case that had deadlocked because of a vacancy.

 

The appeal comes with the president and Republicans at loggerheads over confirming a ninth justice.

 

Democrats and Obama have used the deadlocked rulings to urge the Senate to confirm a new justice to replace Scalia. But Senate Republicans have said they will not move on Obama’s nominee this year. 

 

“Because we have a short-staffed Court unable to issue a decision on the DAPA program, a regional lower court has been able to put unprecedented constraints on the executive and stop a federal policy nationwide, affecting millions of American families,” Elizabeth Wydra, president of the Constitutional Accountability Center, said in a statement.

 

“This petition highlights why the Senate leadership needs to stop its hyper-partisan gamesmanship and consider the President’s Supreme Court nominee, so the Court can fulfill its constitutional role of declaring what the law is.”

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
July 18, 2026

Arnie Arnesen Attitude July 16 2026

Attitude with Arnie Arnesen
CAC’s David H. Gans joined The Attitude with Arnie Arnesen to discuss the Reconstruction Amendments. Listen...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Wridt v. City of New York

In Wridt v. City of New York, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York is considering whether the NYPD’s mass surveillance system is unconstitutional.
Civil and Human Rights
July 8, 2026

Ruling Away From America’s Second Founding

Slate
CAC’s David H. Gans wrote about the Roberts Court for Slate magazine. Read more in Slate.
By: David H. Gans
Civil and Human Rights
July 1, 2026

Furthering Inclusive Constitutionalism

Jotwell
Professor Allison Brownell Tirres reviewed recent scholarship on the Black Conventions of Reconstruction by CAC’s David H....
Civil and Human Rights
June 30, 2026

CAC Release: Roberts Court’s Conservative Supermajority Hollows Out Equal Protection Guarantee

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Little v. Hecox and West Virginia...
By: David H. Gans, Praveen Fernandes, Joshua Blecher-Cohen
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. Supreme Court

Department of Labor v. Sun Valley Orchards, LLC

In Department of Labor v. Sun Valley Orchards, LLC, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Constitution permits the Department of Labor to use administrative proceedings to impose civil monetary penalties on employers who violate...