The contentious debate over whether President Barack Obama has the authority to defer the deportation of millions of people living in the country illegally, and then to grant some of them temporary permission to work, will finally get the hearing it deserves before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Last year, a district court judge in Texas issued an injunction halting the president’s Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program, as well as his expansion of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, in response to a legal challenge by 26 states. Those initiatives would make more than 4 million people brought here as children, or whose children are in the country legally, eligible for three-year renewable reprieves. Now the high court says it will determine whether the injunction halting them was proper.
The lower court rulings struck us at the time as more about politics than jurisprudence. Federal laws and court precedent clearly grant the administration broad leeway to use “prosecutorial discretion” in enforcing immigration codes. The federal Immigration and Nationalization Act also allows the government to authorize work permits for people who are given permission to remain in the country.
We are heartened that the justices said they would look specifically at the question of whether the president’s actions violate the constitutional admonition that the president must “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”
The battle over immigration reform is a political fight that would ideally be resolved through legislation.
Oral arguments in the case are expected in April, which could lead to a decisionin time for the final stretch of the 2016 election cycle. The court should act quickly to affirm the president’s authority. And voters need to elect people who will address it in a serious and humane manner.