Deadlocked Supreme Court blocks Obama on immigration
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court dealt a likely fatal blow Thursday to President Obama's effort to protect millions of undocumented immigrants from deportation and allow them to seek work permits, deadlocking 4-4 over a plan that had divided the nation as well as the justices.
The tie vote leaves intact a preliminary injunction that stopped the program in its tracks more than a year ago, after Texas and 25 other states claimed Obama lacked the authority to circumvent Congress. While the case now will return to Texas for further review, it's unlikely the lower federal courts that blocked the program will reverse themselves.
In practical terms, then, the 4-4 vote dooms for the remainder of Obama's presidency his goal of providing protection to more than 4 million undocumented parents whose children already have such protection. The justices likely split along ideological lines, though the vote was not revealed; the ruling carries no national precedent.
It was a sudden, crushing defeat for millions of parents who came to the country illegally and have lived in the shadows, often for decades. The administration had hoped that at least one of the more conservative justices — possibly Chief Justice John Roberts — would rule that the plan posed no financial threat to the states and therefore could not be challenged in court.
As Supreme Court battle looms, undocumented immigrants seek truce
Prep for the polls: See who is running for president and compare where they stand on key issues in our Voter Guide
Texas immigrants rest case with Supreme Court
"Today’s decision is frustrating to those who seek to grow our economy and bring a rationality to our immigration system, and to allow people to come out of the shadows and lift this perpetual cloud on them," Obama said shortly after the ruling was announced by Chief Justice John Roberts. "It is heartbreaking for the millions of immigrants who’ve made their lives here, who’ve raised families here, who hoped for the opportunity to work, pay taxes, serve in our military, and more fully contribute to this country we all love in an open way."
But Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said the ruling shows that "even a president cannot unilaterally change the law." He called it "a major setback to President Obama’s attempts to expand executive power, and a victory for those who believe in the separation of powers and the rule of law.”
Like three other tie rulings since Justice Antonin Scalia's death in February left the court with only eight justices, the one-sentence opinion simply announced that the court was "equally divided" and unable to muster a majority for either side.
That's all opponents needed to block the program, which would have offered qualifying parents of children who were born in the United States or are legal residents the right to remain in the country for three years and apply for work authorization. The president, with two lower-court strikes against him, needed an elusive fifth vote.
"Justice has been delayed, and justice delayed is justice denied," said Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center.
The Obama administration could ask the high court to rehear the case when it is back to full strength, a request that would be considered a long shot. It also could request that the injunction blocking the program be limited to the three states overseen by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit: Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi.
The 4-4 ruling also could unleash new challenges from states and cities that favor Obama's policy as a benefit to their local economies and residents. California, Washington state, New York City and others made those claims in briefs supporting the administration. But they would face a steep legal hurdle.
Obama: Court ruling won't end immigration debate
Immigrant groups crushed over Supreme Court ruling, focus on next moves
In the meantime, the decision could embolden conservative governors and legislatures to mount additional court challenges to federal immigration actions — something U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli warned about during oral argument in April.
The ruling is sure to have political repercussions this fall by emboldening immigrant communities. Cristina Jimenez, director of the immigrant rights group United We Dream, called for political action "because a new president could either protect and build on these programs or take them away completely.”
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, who would succeed Obama in office next January if she wins the November election, said the tie vote does not prove the plan is outside the president's legal authority. But she lamented that it throws millions of families "into a state of uncertainty."
But her opponent, Republican Donald Trump, said the decision "has blocked one of the most unconstitutional actions ever undertaken by a president ... giving work permits and entitlement benefits to people illegally in the country."
Hillary Clinton slams 'heartbreaking' immigration ruling
The immigration battle was waged on two fronts before the court: The administration fought with the states as well as with the House of Representatives, which previously blocked the president's effort to confer legal status to some of the nation's more than 11 million illegal immigrants. It melded with a presidential campaign in which Donald Trump has promised to crack down and deport the same people that Clinton wants to help.
Obama announced the "Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents," or DAPA program, in November 2014. It would extend protections to more than 4 million parents who meet the criteria, just as a 2012 program did for immigrants brought to the United States as children. More than 700,000 have qualified for that earlier program, which would be extended.
Once qualified, parents also could apply for work authorization, pay taxes and receive some government benefits, such as Social Security. Those with criminal backgrounds or who have arrived since 2010 would not qualify.
Texas challenged Obama's authority to implement the policy by executive action, rather than going through Congress. Federal district court Judge Andrew Hanen in Brownsville, Texas, upheld the challenge in February 2015 and blocked the program from being implemented nationwide. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld that ruling last November in a 2-1 decision.
Supreme Court split on Obama immigration plan
In written briefs and oral arguments, the Justice Department contended that the policy only would make official what was happening anyway — undocumented immigrants who do not have criminal records and are not priorities for deportation are generally left alone. The government only has enough funds to deport about 400,000 a year, they said.
Lawyers for Texas and the House of Representatives countered that while the president can decide not to deport individual immigrants, only Congress can defer action on a class-wide basis.
The state's injury claim focused on what it said would have been the need to spend money issuing driver's licenses to hundreds of thousands of immigrants. Federal officials said that was Texas' choice, and not a ground for a lawsuit.
Supreme Court upholds affirmative action in university admissions
Supreme Court divides over breath, blood tests for drunk drivers