Equity & Diversity

Supreme Court Weighs Deportation Dispute

By Mark Walsh — April 26, 2016 4 min read
Supporters of an Obama administration program seeking to give protection from deportation to unauthorized immigrants whose children are U.S. citizens demonstrate outside the U.S. Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments in a challenge to the program.
  • Save to favorites
  • Print

The U.S. Supreme Court appears divided over President Barack Obama’s program offering work permits and relief from deportation to some 4 million unauthorized immigrant parents of children who are U.S. citizens.

The question of whether Texas and 25 other states have legal “standing” to challenge the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans program dominated the 90 minutes of intense arguments in United States v. Texas (Case No 15-674) April 18.

The DAPA program and an expansion of an earlier program aimed at young people hold an array of implications for the nation’s schools, parents, and students.

Although the arguments did not get into some of the particulars of school-related issues raised in some of the briefs, the human dimension of the immigration debate did not go unmentioned.

“There is a pressing humanitarian concern in avoiding the breakup of families that contain U.S. citizen children,” said U.S. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. in defending the administration’s program.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that some 11 million total unauthorized immigrants are “here in the shadows” and are part of the economy, like it or not.

She suggested the administration had the executive authority to create the DAPA program because of congressional inaction on immigration reform.

“Here, we have a Congress that’s decided—some members of the Congress have decided they don’t like [immigration legislation]—and so Congress has remained silent,” Sotomayor said.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that Congress was not providing the executive branch all the resources it would take to deport all 11 million undocumented immigrants.

“Inevitably, priorities have to be set,” she said.

Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Elena Kagan also expressed support for the administration’s position.

Costs of Driver’s Licenses, Schools

Meanwhile, three justices of the court’s more conservative bloc expressed varying degrees of sympathy for the states’ position, while conservative Justice Clarence Thomas remained silent but is expected to lean toward the states, as well.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. expressed support for a lower court’s ruling that at least Texas, among the plaintiffs, had legal standing to challenge the program because it would have to provide driver’s licenses to the DAPA recipients.

In blocking the Obama administration’s program, lower courts held that Texas had standing because it would incur additional costs for issuing driver’s licenses if some 500,000 unauthorized immigrant parents received notice from the federal government under the DAPA program that they were not a priority for deportation.

In its brief, Texas cites not only increased costs it would face to issue driver’s licenses to those who gained relief under the DAPA program, but additional education costs of some $58 million per year “stemming from illegal immigration,” presumably from an increase in families with a mix of undocumented members and U.S. citizen children.

“DAPA is an unprecedented assertion of executive power,” Texas Solicitor General Scott A. Keller told the justices.

Verrilli, who was defending the program, faced some sharp questioning from Alito.

Texas doesn’t “want to give driver’s licenses to the beneficiaries of DAPA,” Alito told Verrilli. “And unless you can tell us that there is some way that they could achieve that, then I don’t see how there is not injury in fact.”

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. suggested that Texas and other states should be able to challenge the program based on increased costs. “Isn’t losing money the classic case for standing?” Roberts said.

On the merits, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy expressed some support for the states. He said that when it came to an immigration policy affecting some 4 million people, “what we’re doing is defining the limits of discretion. And it seems to me that that is a legislative, not an executive act.”

Because lower courts approved an injunction blocking the initiative, the administration must win five votes on the eight-member court (with the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat still vacant) to revive the program.

Considerable discussion took place last week on what the DAPA program would actually do, given that it builds on other federal immigration laws and regulations that all sides agree already give the executive branch wide discretion on deferring deportation of various classes of noncitizens.

DAPA “does not confer any immigration status,” Verrilli said.

Roberts and Alito pointed to what they viewed as inconsistent language in the administration’s defense of the program that DAPA recipients may “work lawfully” but not be considered to be here legally.

“I’m just talking about the English language,” Alito said.

Verrilli suggested there were fine lines between the meanings of various words and phrases in immigration law, especially the idea of “lawful presence.”

A decision in the case is expected by late June.

A version of this article appeared in the April 27, 2016 edition of Education Week as High Court Weighs Deportation Dispute

Events

This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Reading & Literacy Webinar
Your Questions on the Science of Reading, Answered
Dive into the Science of Reading with K-12 leaders. Discover strategies, policy insights, and more in our webinar.
Content provided by Otus
Mathematics Live Online Discussion A Seat at the Table: Breaking the Cycle: How Districts are Turning around Dismal Math Scores
Math myth: Students just aren't good at it? Join us & learn how districts are boosting math scores.
This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Student Achievement Webinar
How To Tackle The Biggest Hurdles To Effective Tutoring
Learn how districts overcome the three biggest challenges to implementing high-impact tutoring with fidelity: time, talent, and funding.
Content provided by Saga Education

EdWeek Top School Jobs

Teacher Jobs
Search over ten thousand teaching jobs nationwide — elementary, middle, high school and more.
View Jobs
Principal Jobs
Find hundreds of jobs for principals, assistant principals, and other school leadership roles.
View Jobs
Administrator Jobs
Over a thousand district-level jobs: superintendents, directors, more.
View Jobs
Support Staff Jobs
Search thousands of jobs, from paraprofessionals to counselors and more.
View Jobs

Read Next

Equity & Diversity Should College Essays Touch on Race? Some Feel the Affirmative Action Ruling Leaves Them No Choice
After the end of affirmative action, the college essay is one of the few places where race can play a role in admissions decisions.
8 min read
Hillary Amofa listens to others member of the Lincoln Park High School step team after school on March 8, 2024, in Chicago. When she started writing her college essay, Amofa told the story she thought admissions offices wanted to hear. She wrote about being the daughter of immigrants from Ghana, about growing up in a small apartment in Chicago. She described hardship and struggle. Then she deleted it all. "I would just find myself kind of trauma-dumping," said the 18 year-old senior, "And I'm just like, this doesn't really say anything about me as a person."
Hillary Amofa listens to others member of the Lincoln Park High School step team after school on March 8, 2024, in Chicago. When she started writing her college essay, Amofa told the story she thought admissions offices wanted to hear. She wrote about being the daughter of immigrants from Ghana, about growing up in a small apartment in Chicago, and then deleted it all to avoid sounding like she was "trauma-dumping."
Charles Rex Arbogast/AP
Equity & Diversity Teacher, Students Sue Arkansas Over Ban on Critical Race Theory
A high school teacher and two students asked a federal judge to strike down the restrictions as unconstitutional.
2 min read
Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders signs an education overhaul bill into law, March 8, 2023, at the state Capitol in Little Rock, Ark. On Monday, March 25, 2024, a high school teacher and two students sued Arkansas over the state's ban on critical race theory and “indoctrination” in public schools, asking a federal judge to strike down the restrictions as unconstitutional.
Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders signs an education overhaul bill into law, March 8, 2023, at the state Capitol in Little Rock, Ark.
Andrew DeMillo/AP
Equity & Diversity Opinion What March Madness Can Teach Schools About Equity
What if we modeled equity in action in K-12 classrooms after the resources provided to college student-athletes? asks Bettina L. Love.
3 min read
A young student is celebrated like a pro athlete for earning an A+!
Chris Kindred for Education Week
Equity & Diversity What's Permissible Under Florida’s ‘Don’t Say Gay’ Law? A New Legal Settlement Clarifies
The Florida department of education must send out a copy of the settlement agreement to school boards across the state.
4 min read
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis answers questions from the media, March 7, 2023, at the state Capitol in Tallahassee, Fla. Students and teachers will be able to speak freely about sexual orientation and gender identity in Florida classrooms under a settlement reached March 11, 2024 between Florida education officials and civil rights attorneys who had challenged a state law which critics dubbed “Don't Say Gay.”
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis answers questions from the media, March 7, 2023, at the state Capitol in Tallahassee, Fla. Students and teachers will be able to speak freely about sexual orientation and gender identity in Florida classrooms under a settlement reached March 11, 2024, between Florida education officials and civil rights attorneys who had challenged the state's “Don't Say Gay” law.
Phil Sears/AP