U.S. v. Texas Immigration Case May Turn On Procedural Grounds: MPI Policy Beat

Muzaffar Chishti, Faye Hipsman, and Isabel Ball, Apr. 26, 2016 - "The palpably intense oral argument in the case, U.S. v. Texas, focused chiefly on two issues: the standing of Texas and 25 other states to legally challenge the executive actions announced by President Obama in November 2014 and the meaning of the term “lawfully present.”  While the eight justices appeared evenly split, at least based on their questioning, it is difficult to predict how the court—which has been short one justice since the February death of Antonin Scalia—will ultimately rule.  Regardless of the legal outcome, it is increasingly clear that the future of the DAPA program will be mostly shaped by the next occupant of the White House, whether Republican or Democrat. ... Should the Republicans take the White House, the DAPA program would all but certainly be rescinded come 2017, and few unauthorized immigrants would see any benefit in applying this year.  In the event of a Democratic victory, it seems clear that the DAPA and expanded DACA programs would only reach full stride under the next administration.

• Transcript of the Supreme Court oral argument in U.S. v. Texas
• Briefs and amicus briefs filed in U.S. v. Texas "