June 23, 2016 12:22 PM
HomeCongressSupreme Court Upholds Major Separation of Powers Case

Supreme Court Upholds Major Separation of Powers Case

By  Congress, Courts, Law  6 Comments

The Supreme Court Building in Washington, DC Photo: Jon Richards
The Supreme Court Building in Washington, DC Photo: Jon Richards
Approaching the end of its 2016 term, the Supreme Court today effectively upheld a lower court’s decision that President Obama violated the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of the federal government by issuing executive actions that would have allowed around four million illegal immigrants to remain in America for a period of time without fear of being departed. The DAPA program, or Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, was proposed by President Obama after Congress failed to pass comprehensive immigration reform.

While the court’s decision is seen by some as a blow to immigration reform, it might more properly be seen as a win for those who believe the president has usurped power rightly belonging to Congress. That’s what Speaker Paul Ryan said in comments following the decision:

Today, Article I of the Constitution was vindicated. The Supreme Court’s ruling makes the president’s executive action on immigration null and void. The Constitution is clear: The president is not permitted to write laws—only Congress is. This is another major victory in our fight to restore the separation of powers.

Georgia Attorney General Sam Olens echoed the Speaker’s sentiment:

The Supreme Court’s action today leaves in place a decision affirming that President Obama cannot evade the Constitution. Our nation’s laws, the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches, and the Constitution, must be followed.

The victory could be short-lived, however. The court’s decision was a tie, due to the death of Justice Scalia. That means the issue could be brought before the court again, once the court gains a ninth justice. And that brings up several questions. Will the Senate confirm Merrick Gartland, President Obama’s pick to replace Scalia, before the new president takes office in January, thereby allowing the Obama administration to ask for a rehearing? Or, will President Hillary Clinton, who has said she wants to broaden the DACA and DAPA programs, appeal the issue after getting her choice of judge on the court? Another possibility is that President Trump will announce that he has no intention of asking the court to approve a measure that goes against his anti-illegal immigrant stance?

For that matter, Congress could write its own legislation dealing with the issue of illegal (and legal) immigration. As usual, it’s complicated.

About Author

Jon Richards

6 Comments
  1. Jon Richards

    This statement just in from 14th District Rep. Tom Graves:

    The president is not a king. He cannot ignore Congress and write laws on his own. This ruling upholds the constitutional separation of powers, and affirms that it is Congress that writes laws. I am grateful for the 26 states, including Georgia, that took action and sued the administration when the president tried to implement his unconstitutional amnesty plan. This is a big victory for the Constitution, the rule of law and the American people.

  2. gcp

    POTUS already has executive control over immigration enforcement. If he gains DAPA authority coupled with DACA there ain’t much left for congress to do concerning immigration. Congress would still control citizenship but not much else.

  3. Jon Richards

    More statements:

    Senator Johnny Isakson:

    President Obama continues to circumvent Congress with executive orders and regulatory overreach. This is the wrong way to govern. As I’ve said all along, any attempt to circumvent Congress’s authority over immigration law is unacceptable.

    Today, our constitutional system of checks and balances was put to the test and Article I of the Constitution prevailed. The outcome of today’s ruling upholds the rule of law and prevents an unprecedented executive overreach. It also demonstrates why it is incredibly important for the next president to appoint, and the Senate to confirm, judges who will respect the Constitution and the rule of law and who can be trusted to reject future abuses of executive power.

    Senator David Perdue:

    Today’s Supreme Court ruling further halts President Obama’s executive amnesty and upholds the Constitutional balance of powers. Yet, Americans should not have to rely on the courts to ensure President Obama follows the laws he is sworn to uphold. I am proud that Georgia joined a majority of states to stand up against President Obama’s unconstitutional executive amnesty. There are real national security risks associated with illegal immigration, which is why we must first secure our border and restore the rule of law in our country.

    6th District Rep. Tom Price:

    While President Obama may be ‘frustrated’ by today’s Supreme Court ruling to prevent – at least in part – his amnesty agenda, the American people are frustrated by this president believing the Constitution and the laws of this land do not apply to him. As the Court has shown today, they do apply. Congress has the sole responsibility and authority to make laws, and the president has the responsibility to enforce them. Our immigration laws need to be enforced so that our homeland is protected and our borders are respected. That is why the House of Representatives stood with the 26 states – including the State of Georgia – that brought this case against the Obama Administration. We will continue to stand and fight to preserve the integrity of our Constitution and the republic it is meant to protect.

  4. Will Durant

    “Another possibility is that President Trump will announce that he has no intention of asking the court to approve…”

    An example of the gossamer thin line between tragedy and comedy in a single sentence.

  5. ScottNAtlanta

    This title is highly misleading. There was nothing upheld and no precedent was set. The exact case can come up again through the 9th circuit and could very well have an opposite decision. The court deadlocked at 4-4…so in fact there was NO decision at all thus the 5th circuit decision stands for now, but is by no means final. You really should change the misleading title.

  6. Dave Bearse

    Isakson’s complaint that Obama is circumventing the Constitution and governing in the wrong way would be more credible if it were not undermined by Isakson as party to GOP Senators’ circumvention of the Constitutional requirement that the Senate advise and consent with respect to Supreme Court nominations.

Add a Comment