Immigration and Citizenship

Obama immigration measures on hold after Supreme Court deadlock

A 4-4 vote in the Supreme Court on Thursday leaves in place an appellate decision blocking President Barack Obama’s executive orders intended to shield some 5 million undocumented immigrants from deportation.

“The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court,” the eight justices said in a brief statement.

The ninth seat on the Supreme Court has been vacant since the unexpected death in February of Justice Antonin Scalia. While Obama nominated a successor, the Republican-controlled Senate has so far refused to even consider the nominee, insisting that the choice should be left to the new president who takes office next January.

Frustrated by Congress’ inability to pass immigration reform, Obama issued in November 2014 a package of executive orders that had the potential to provide relief to an estimated 5 million people who were in the U.S. illegally.

One element of the plan called for expanding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program. Launched in 2012, DACA has prevented the deportation of more than 500,000 young migrants.

The second major component was the creation of a new program, Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, known as DAPA, intended to prevent the deportation of migrants with U.S.-born children.

In November 2015, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans voted 2-1 to uphold a judicial injunction blocking implementation of Obama’s executive orders.

The injunction was granted in February 2015 by Andrew Hanen, a U.S. district judge in Brownsville, Texas, in response to a suit filed by Texas and 25 other Republican-governed states contending that Obama exceeded his constitutional authority.

Though the Supreme Court allows the 5th Circuit ruling to stand, it does not set a nationally binding precedent, according to Brianne Gorod, chief counsel with the Constitutional Accountability Center.

The 5th Circuit has jurisdiction over cases in Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas and Gorod said that people in the other 47 states could file suits seeking to overturn the injunction against the immigration measures.

“The decision makes it possible for individuals to file suits in other parts of the country, but it is not clear how those courts would respond,” she told EFE. It’s not clear if they would respect the decision of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals or if they would rule differently. Frankly, this ruling causes a lot of legal confusion.”

More from Immigration and Citizenship

Immigration and Citizenship
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Buele Morocho v. Warden Philadelphia FDC

In Buele Morocho v. Warden Philadelphia FDC, the Third Circuit is considering whether the Due Process Clause allows the Trump administration to imprison all undocumented immigrants during deportation proceedings against them.
Immigration and Citizenship
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Sosnava Rodriguez v. Ortega

In Sosnava Rodriguez v. Ortega, the Fifth Circuit is considering whether the Due Process Clause allows the Trump administration to imprison all undocumented immigrants during deportation proceedings against them.
Immigration and Citizenship
April 1, 2026

CAC Release: Justices Skeptical of Administration’s Domicile-Driven Approach to Birthright Citizenship

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Trump v....
By: Smita Ghosh
Immigration and Citizenship
March 31, 2026

Most Americans Favor Birthright Citizenship. That Wasn’t Always True.

New York Times
Elizabeth Wydra was quoted in the New York Times discussing the history of the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship...
Immigration and Citizenship
March 30, 2026

Why the Supreme Court will get the birthright citizenship case right

National Catholic Reporter
Smita Ghosh's Slate article about Lynch v. Clarke and birthright citizenship was cited in an op-ed in the National Catholic...
Immigration and Citizenship
March 21, 2026

Legal History Blog Weekly Roundup

Legal History Blog
CAC Senior Appellate Counsel Smita Ghosh's article in Slate about birthright citizenship was cited in...