Supreme Court Deals a Blow to Obama’s Effort to Prevent Deportations

The court declined to re-hear a case blocking implementation of the president’s actions.

<a href="">dkfielding</a>/iStock

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

The Supreme Court dealt a major blow Monday to President Barack Obama’s effort to allow some documented immigrants to live and work legally in the United States. The court declined to re-hear a case that halted Obama’s executive actions intended to prevent the deportation of these residents.

In 2014, after Congress failed to pass comprehensive immigration reform, Obama took matters into his own hands. He announced the creation of a new program, called the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA), that would have protected undocumented parents of US citizens and green-card holders from deportation and allowed them to apply for work permits, as long as they didn’t have a criminal record. Obama also planned to expand an existing program called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), which grants those same protections to immigrants who came to the United States as children.

Together, the creation of DAPA and the expansion of DACA would have delayed the deportation of up to 5 million undocumented immigrants. Instead, the executive orders were challenged by Texas and 25 other states, which argued that they went beyond the scope of the president’s constitutional authority. A federal judge in Texas issued a nationwide injunction, blocking the actions from taking effect.

The case made it all the way to the Supreme Court, and in June 2016, following the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, the justices issued a split 4-4 decision. That meant the lower court’s injunction, which had been affirmed by a panel of appeals court judges, remained in place, and the programs could not be implemented. The Obama administration’s request that the justices take up the case again was a long-shot effort to resurrect the president’s actions, since the Supreme Court almost never rehears a case.

Still, the fight to bring back Obama’s executive actions is not over. In August, lawyers from three immigrant rights groups filed a federal lawsuit in New York arguing that the Texas judge who blocked the executive actions did not have the authority to issue a nationwide injunction. That case, which aims to revive Obama’s immigration programs in certain parts of the county, is ongoing.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend