Civil and Human Rights

President Obama’s Immigration DAPA Executive Action: “Lawful Discretion”

Washington, DC – On news this afternoon that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied the Obama Administration a stay of a lower court ruling that blocks his Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (“DAPA”) executive action on immigration, Constitutional Accountability Center Appellate Counsel Brianne Gorod issued the following reaction: 

 

“The Fifth Circuit today plainly misunderstood both the President’s immigration initiative and the role of the President in enforcing immigration law. With its immigration action, the Obama Administration was simply doing what the executive branch does all the time—determining how best to enforce the nation’s laws.  

 

“Just three years ago, the Supreme Court recognized that a ‘principal feature of the removal system is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials,’ including ‘whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all.’  When the Supreme Court takes up this issue, it should reaffirm that principle and recognize that the President’s immigration initiative is simply an exercise of that lawful discretion, and allow the program to be implemented immediately.”

 

#

 

Additional Resources:

 

FAQ: The Challenge to President Obama’s Immigration Action: What’s Next? http://theusconstitution.org/sites/default/files/briefs/Immigration-Stay-FAQ-CAC.pdf

 

“President Obama’s executive order on immigration wasn’t an executive overreach,” Brianne Gorod, The New Republic, February 19, 2015: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121098/president-obamas-executive-order-immigration-wasnt-overreach 

 

##

 

Constitutional Accountability Center (www.theusconstitution.org) is a think tank, public interest law firm, and action center dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text and history.

 

###

More from Civil and Human Rights

Corporate Accountability
 

Intuit, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission

In Intuit Inc v. Federal Trade Commission, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is considering whether the FTC’s authority to issue cease-and-desist orders against false and misleading advertising is constitutional.
Rule of Law
June 20, 2024

Opinion | The tragedy of the Supreme Court’s bump stock ruling

Washington Post
Don’t let technicalities, or a refusal to use common sense, become the enemy of public...
By: Nina Henry
Access to Justice
June 20, 2024

RELEASE: Supreme Court rejects artificial limit on liability for speech-based retaliation by government officers

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s Supreme Court decision in Gonzalez v. Trevino, a case in...
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Civil and Human Rights
June 20, 2024

RELEASE: Supreme Court decision keeps the door open to accountability for police officers who make false charges

WASHINGTON, DC – Following this morning’s decision at the Supreme Court in Chiaverini v. City...
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Corporate Accountability
June 20, 2024

RELEASE: In narrow ruling, Supreme Court rejects baseless effort to shield corporate-derived income from taxation

WASHINGTON, DC – Following this morning’s decision at the Supreme Court in Moore v. United...
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Rule of Law
June 19, 2024

The Supreme Court’s approach on ‘history and tradition’ is irking Amy Coney Barrett

CNN
Washington (CNN) — On a Supreme Court where the conservative supermajority increasingly leans on history as a...
By: Elizabeth B. Wydra, Devan Cole, John Fritze