The Supreme Court again ruled against President Obama’s extra-legal immigration executive actions by denying a petition for rehearing in United States v. Texas. That is the case in which Texas and 25 other states sued Obama for trying to change immigration law by so-called “executive action” law when Congress was unable to reach a consensus to do so.
The court heard arguments in the case in April of this year. In June it was announced that the Court was deadlocked 4-4. That left in place the lower court’s decision striking down the policy. In July, the Obama administration asked the court to reconsider that ruling when it has all nine justices. Today the justices rejected the request for a rehearing without comment.
A federal court in Brownsville, Texas, put Obama’s immigration actions on hold early last year. Then a panel of the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, voting 2-1, upheld that ruling. The appeals court went further, and found that Obama had no legal authority for his actions.
The case has been returned to the District Court Judge in Texas.
We have previously reported that Obama knows and has admitted he can’t reform immigration without Congressional action:
Obama ran for president promising secure borders, remove incentives for illegal immigration, and to allow undocumented immigrants who are in good standing to pay a fine, learn English, and go to the back of the line for the opportunity to become citizens.
President Obama promised to make immigration reform a top priority of the first year of his presidency. After Obama backed away from that promise, and it was clear his ObamaCrats were going to lose the House in the 2010 midterm elections, he gave illegal aliens a back door amnesty.
After the Republicans regained control of the House illegal aliens clamored for Obama to deliver on his promised immigration reform. At two separate forums President Obama explained that there are laws on the books that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system and that to ignore those congressional mandates would “not conform with my appropriate role as President.”