I was surprised to hear that in accepting the case, the SC expanded their review of the case to include the "take care" clause of the Constitution. Neither the complainant, the lower courts nor the Appeals Courts thought that was relevant or included it in their arguments. I heard a legal analyst say this morning that this is the first time in history that the SC has done something like that.
I thought that was interesting myself, can't say I know enough about SC procedure to know if it's the first time they've done it, usually more interested in the finished products. They have on plenty of occasions ordered a lower court to reconsider an issue after they heard it when they decide the court didn't resolve the case on the correct grounds and want to see the arguments played out. I'm guessing that both sides request for haste in the resolution called for them to make this request so the issue can be resolved now rather than returned to the federal circuit court and then sent back.
On the substance, using prosecutorial discretion to chose to stop enforcing the law is not within the intent of the "take care" clause. Every level of the state and federal government wastes time today on minor violations notwithstanding that they are more concerned with big ticket items. There's no validity to the idea that low priority cases should be halted to preserve resources for high priority cases.
I'm also fascinated by the apparent propaganda back fire of the current administration. As a result of a change in how deportations are counted, the Obama administration has presented itself as deporting more people than prior administrations, notwithstanding that they have virtually ceased deporting anyone from the interior of the country. So notwithstanding the administration is deporting less people than others, it has managed to get its President labeled the Deporter-in-Chief and cause dissatisfaction among Hispanic voters.
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
I should probably look into it more, but I'm not sure how the States have standing to sue. On the face of it, I agree with the article's point that it sounds like permission for the States to use the Courts to meddle in Federal jurisdiction. It seems unwise.
Honestly, the states should have standing to sue when the federal government is not enforcing its own laws to their detriment. Here their standing comes from the increased costs that they are required to incur based on the "legal" status grant to those whose immigration status is being altered. Honestly, I think we are at the point where we may need an amendment to allow the states to act when the federal government is being deliberately negligent. It's one thing to argue pre-emption doctrine when the federal government is taking an active role on these matters, but it's quite another to argue for it when the federal government is not enforcing the law. You don't have to go much further than looking at the federal governments active attack on Arizona versus its completely ignoring "sanctuary" cities to see its real intent is to ignore its own laws.
On the other hand, there does seem to be a legitimate question of constitutional authority. Namely, how much leeway does the Presdient have to accomplish a task which Congress requires but has not funded. Is the Executive obliged to maintain the appearance of enforcement even though there are insufficient resources to carry out that enforcement. My understanding of the situation Obama was just giving consistency and direction to what limited resources were already causing to occur.
Lol. Congress has funded how many officers and agents for immigration enforcement? How many attorneys in the justice department? How many federal agents that could arrest and detain illegal immigrants if they chose? How many that could audit and punish employers? When the IRS audits someone could they not report them to justice for hiring illegal immigrant housekeepers?
It's a lie to claim this is about prioritizing
limited resources. This is about deliberately choosing not to enforce the federal laws in good faith.
On the other pseudopod, it might be nicer to smack the Executive down for using a shortage of resources to make explicit policy. It's one thing to assign priorities, it's another to say "these are the parts of the law we're going to ignore because **** you Congress." Without some sort of change in process, there's too many things which will never be completely funded to allow the Executive this kind of manuvering room.
The executive has sufficient resources to enforce this law, every previous administration managed it with less resources.
We're getting to the point where we're choosing to empower a King to "get things done," without considering that the things they get done may not be in our interests. That's always been the problem with Kings, they aren't terribly accountable.
