Civil and Human Rights

Justice Dept. Urges the Supreme Court to Rehear Immigration Case

By Marcia Coyle

The U.S. Justice Department on Monday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to rehear a challenge to the Obama administration’s plan to delay the deportation of nearly five million undocumented immigrants.

 

The justices on June 23 deadlocked 4-4 in United States v. Texas, leaving in place a lower court’s nationwide injunction that froze the deportation plan. The administration had sought to overturn the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which upheld the injunction after finding the immigration action exceeded executive power. Texas and 25 other Republican-led states brought the challenge to the administration’s plan.

 

In an eight-page petition, acting solicitor general Ian Gershengorn acknowledged that the high court rarely grants rehearings. Still, he said, the court had granted them in the past where the 4-4 division occurred because of a vacancy on the bench—as exists now, after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.

 

The U.S. Senate has refused to act on the president’s nomination of Merrick Garland to fill the vacancy created by Scalia’s death in February.

 

Gershengorn told the justices that the need for rehearing is “more pressing” than in two other 4-4 deadlocks last term: Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association and Hawkins v. Community Bank of Raymore. The justices denied rehearings in those cases.

 

Issues in those two cases were likely to recur, Gershengorn argued, but the nationwide injunction in the Texas case prohibits the government from implementing the deportation plan anywhere and the validity of the plan is unlikely to arise in any future case.

 

“This court therefore should grant rehearing to provide for a decision by the court when it has a full complement of members, rather than allow a nonprecedential affirmance by an equally divided court to leave in place a nationwide injunction of such significance,” Gershengorn wrote.

Civil rights organizations applauded the administration’s decision to seek rehearing.

 

“Given the lives at stake, we join the Department of Justice in calling for a rehearing of the case before a fully staffed bench—this issue is just too important to leave to the tied decision of a hamstrung court,” Frank Sharry, executive director of America’s Voice, said in a statement.

 

Elizabeth Wydra, president of the Constitutional Accountability Center, said the Justice Department’s 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.”

 

A total of 3,532 rehearing petitions were filed—and the court granted three—between the 2006 through 2010 terms, according to research by a team from Mayer Brown.

 

Even if a new justice becomes available, it does not guarantee a rehearing petition will be granted. The new justice does not participate in consideration of the petition, but would take part in reargument and the judgment if a majority of the court grants rehearing.

More from Civil and Human Rights

Civil and Human Rights
May 19, 2025

Debate over transgender rights grows more fraught in new Trump era

The Christian Science Monitor
Actions by the Trump administration have been pushing back on transgender inclusion, amid sharp public...
Civil and Human Rights
March 19, 2025

Viewpoint: The North Dakota Constitution’s protections include reproductive autonomy

North Dakota's Grand Forks Herald
The Court should live up to North Dakota’s history as a state with some of...
By: Nargis Aslami
Civil and Human Rights
February 27, 2025

What You Should Know About the Right to Protection in the Trump Era

Washington Monthly
The 14th Amendment was meant to enforce the laws equally, not put vulnerable populations in...
By: David H. Gans
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

Shilling v. Trump

In Shilling v. Trump, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington considered whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.
Civil and Human Rights
February 19, 2025

History of the North Dakota Constitution Amicus Brief in Access Independent Health Services Inc., d/b/a Red River Women’s Clinic v. Wrigley

Center for Reproductive Rights
Amicus is the Constitutional Accountability Center, a think tank and public interest law firm dedicated...
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Talbott v. Trump

In Talbott v. Trump, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia considered whether Trump’s Executive Order categorically barring transgender persons from serving in the military is unconstitutional.