Penn Undergraduate Law Journal
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
    • Pre-Law Corner
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Apply
    • FAQs
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
    • Pre-Law Corner
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Apply
    • FAQs

The Roundtable


Welcome to the Roundtable, a forum for incisive commentary and analysis
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.


INTERESTED IN wRITING FOR tHE rOUNDTABLE?

DAPA and the Limits of Executive Powers

3/18/2016

0 Comments

 
Picture
By Gabriel Maliha

Gabriel Maliha is a junior at the University of Pennsylvania studying criminology.

In November 2014, President Obama announced a new immigration reform program: Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA). The policy would grant “lawful presence” (and right to work) for three years to unauthorized immigrants who are the parents of U.S. Citizens or permanent residents and have been in the country since at least January 2010. [1] Additionally, for “lawful presence” to be granted, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has to deem these immigrants not be a threat to national security.
​

Texas, along with 25 other states, promptly challenged the new policy on three grounds. First, the policy change is “substantive and non-discretionary” and violated the Notice-and-Comment Rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Second, the policy violated the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Third, in enacting the new program, the president violated the “Take Care Clause” of the United States Constitution.  This clause requires the president to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”[2] By violating the APA and the INA, these states argued that these violations are causing the President to simultaneously violate the “Take Care Clause.” The states also asserted “standing” (a party that would suffer a legal injury as a result of the policy) under Article III of the Constitution based on the economic costs of increased expenditures on law enforcement, health and education due to DAPA. The states contended that the “lawful presence” status, under the new policy, would entitle a significant number of individuals to new benefits subsidized by the states, thus causing the economic expenditures of the states to increase. [3]

A federal district court in Texas determined that the States had standing because Texas would have to spend more on subsidized drivers licenses than the new lawfully present individuals would be entitled to under state law if the new policy went into effect. Further, the court found that the policy was substantive enough and not sufficiently discretionary for the APA not to apply. In that regard, the court quoted the President that DHS employees would “suffer consequences” if they did not follow the new directive. [4] The district court granted a preliminary injunction against the new policy, in effect blocking further implementation.

The Department of Justice appealed the injunction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. It contended that the states have no standing in challenging a federal policy on immigration simply because it had collateral consequences, and for the courts to rule as such would potentially open any federal policy to challenge by the states. The Justice Department further asserted that nothing in DAPA mandates Texas to grant driver's licenses, and the state could simply change its laws. Substantively, the administration said that INA as written by Congress gives DHS discretion as to enforcement and that courts have consistently not inserted themselves in prosecutorial discretion. [5][6][7]

The Fifth Circuit agreed that the states had standing and affirmed the Lower Court’s preliminary injunction against the implementation of DAPA. The court said that the states met all the elements required for injunctive relief: They have “established substantial likelihood of success” on merits; they are likely to incur “irreparable harm” without the injunction; the “balance of equities” supports the state's’ contentions and an injunction serves the “public interest”. [8][9] However, the appeals court did not rule on the merits of the case. Despite this, the appeals court did agree with the lower court on standing and on the applicability of APA, and went further by finding that the federal government lacked authority under INA to enact DAPA and branded this action “arbitrary and capricious”. [10][11]

DOJ asked the United States Supreme Court to review the fifth circuit decision and the court granted certiorari (accepted the case) and asked the parties to be ready to argue the “Take Care Clause” issue, in addition to the issues reviewed by the lower courts. The Supreme Court does not usually review issues that have not been examined by lower courts, thus making this case  difficult to interpret. Perhaps the court wants to decide all the potential issues at one time, or maybe the four Supreme Court justices find merit in that argument. [12] Also, it seems that the court is ready to decide this case (if they find that the states have standing) without it being tried in lower courts first.
Of the four issues in this case: Standing, applicability of APA, Violation of INA and “Take Care Clause”, it is the last one by far that would have the most important implications as to the limits of executive power. The recent death of Justice Scalia makes the court ruling even less predictable. Stay tuned.


[1] “Understanding the Legal Challenges to Executive Action”. Jan. 21, 2016. http://www.Immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/understanding-legal-challenges-executive-action.html
[2] Howe, Amy. “Court will review Obama administration’s immigration policy: In Plain English”. SCOTUSBLOG (Jan.19, 2016, 4:39 PM).http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/01/court-will-review-obama-administration-policy-in-plain-english.html
[3] Denniston, Lyle.  “Immigration Policy: Review and decision this Term”. SCOTUSBLOG (Jan. 19, 2016, 9:50 AM). http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/01/immigration-policy-review-and-decision-this-term.html
[4] Texas V. United States, 809 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2015)
[5] Ibid
[6] Denniston, Lyle. “States want wider immigration review, if Court takes cases (FURTHER UPDATE)”. SCOTUSBLOG (Dec. 29, 2015, 6:37 PM). http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/12/states-want-wider-immigration-review-if-court-takes-cases.html
[7] Howe, Amy. “Court will review Obama administration’s immigration policy: In Plain English”. SCOTUSBLOG (Jan.19, 2016, 4:39 PM). http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/01/court-will-review-obama-administration-policy-in-plain-english.html
[8] “Understanding the Legal Challenges to Executive Action”. Jan. 21, 2016. http://www.Immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/understanding-legal-challenges-executive-action.html
[9] Texas V. United States, 809 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2015)
[10] “Understanding the Legal Challenges to Executive Action”. Jan. 21, 2016. http://www.Immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/understanding-legal-challenges-executive-action.html
[11] Texas V. United States, 809 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2015)
[12] Howe, Amy. “Court will review Obama administration’s immigration policy: In Plain English”. SCOTUSBLOG (Jan.19, 2016, 4:39 PM). http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/01/court-will-review-obama-administration-policy-in-plain-english.html
​Photo Credit: Flickr User dcblog

The opinions and views expressed through this publication are the opinions of the designated authors and do not reflect the opinions or views of the Penn Undergraduate Law Journal, our staff, or our clients.


0 Comments

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.


    Categories

    All
    Akshita Tiwary
    Alana Bess
    Alana Mattei
    Albert Manfredi
    Alexander Saeedy
    Alexandra Aaron
    Alexandra Kanan
    Alice Giannini
    Alicia Augustin
    Alicia Kysar
    Ally Kalishman
    Ally Margolis
    Alya Abbassian
    Anika Prakash
    Anna Schwartz
    Ashley Kim
    Astha Pandey
    Audrey Pan
    Benjamin Ng'aru
    Brónach Rafferty
    Bryce Klehm
    Cary Holley
    Christina Gunzenhauser
    Christine Mitchell
    Christopher Brown
    Clarissa Alvarez
    Cole Borlee
    Connor Gallagher
    Dan Spinelli
    Dan Zhang
    David Katz
    Davis Berlind
    Derek Willie
    Dhilan Lavu
    Edgar Palomino
    Edna Simbi
    Emma Davies
    Esther Lee
    Evelyn Bond
    Filzah Belal
    Frank Geng
    Gabriel Maliha
    Georgia Ray
    Graham Reynolds
    Habib Olapade
    Hailie Goldsmith
    Haley Son
    Harshit Rai
    Henry Lininger
    Hetal Doshi
    Iris Zhang
    Irtaza Ali
    Isabela Baghdady
    Ishita Chakrabarty
    Jack Burgess
    Jessica "Lulu" Lipman
    Joe Anderson
    Jonathan Lahdo
    Jonathan Stahl
    Joseph Squillaro
    Justin Yang
    Kaitlyn Rentala
    Kanishka Bhukya
    Katie Kaufman
    Kelly Liang
    Keshav Sharma
    Ketaki Gujar
    Lauren Pak
    Lavi Ben Dor
    Libby Rozbruch
    Lindsey Li
    Luis Bravo
    Lyndsey Reeve
    Madeline Decker
    Maja Cvjetanovic
    Maliha Farrooz
    Marco DiLeonardo
    Margaret Lu
    Matthew Caulfield
    Michael Keshmiri
    Mina Nur Basmaci
    Muskan Mumtaz
    Natalie Peelish
    Natasha Darlington
    Natasha Kang
    Nayeon Kim
    Nicholas Parsons
    Nicholas Williams
    Nicole Greenstein
    Nihal Sahu
    Omar Khoury
    Owen Voutsinas Klose
    Owen Voutsinas-Klose
    Pheby Liu
    Rachel Bina
    Rachel Gu
    Rachel Pomerantz
    Rebecca Heilweil
    Regina Salmons
    Sajan Srivastava
    Sandeep Suresh
    Sanjay Dureseti
    Sarah Simon
    Saranya Das Sharma
    Saranya Sharma
    Sasha Bryski
    Saxon Bryant
    Sean Foley
    Sebastian Bates
    Serena Camici
    Shahana Banerjee
    Shannon Alvino
    Shiven Sharma
    Siddarth Sethi
    Sneha Parthasarathy
    Sneha Sharma
    Sophie Lovering
    Steven Jacobson
    Suaida Firoze
    Suprateek Neogi
    Takane Shoji
    Tanner Bowen
    Taryn MacKinney
    Thomas Cribbins
    Todd Costa
    Tyler Larkworthy
    Vatsal Patel
    Vikram Balasubramanian
    Vishwajeet Deshmukh
    Wajeeha Ahmad
    Yeonhwa Lee

    Archives

    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    September 2022
    June 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    November 2014
    October 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013

Picture
Picture
​