House moves to file Supreme Court brief in Obama immigration case

House moves to file Supreme Court brief in Obama immigration case
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...#ixzz41hKu41mG

okay, how did Obama ignored the Take Care Clause?

What does this mean for DACA?

There is a hearing next month though.

House Dem's filed their brief so Republican's , did the same.

http://www.democraticleader.gov/news...utive-actions/

181 House Members File Amicus Brief in Court to Support President Obama’s Immigration Executive Actions

Washington, D.C. – Today, Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer, Assistant Democratic Leader James E. Clyburn, Democratic Caucus Chair Xavier Becerra, Democratic Caucus Vice-Chair Joseph Crowley, Congressman John Conyers, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren and other House Democrats filed an Amicus Brief in support of the Obama Administration’s appeal in the Fifth Circuit case of Texas v. United States.

181 House Democrats filed the brief on Monday in the appeal of Texas v. United States, which has reached the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals following a federal district court ruling that granted a preliminary injunction that temporarily blocks the Secretary of Homeland Security from implementing the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) program and expanding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, announced by the President of the United States last November as part of his Immigration Accountability Executive Actions.

In supporting the government’s position, the brief expresses the perspectives of Members of Congress that the deferred action programs (DAPA/expanded DACA) comport with Congressional will. The deferred action programs derive from the Executive’s longstanding legal authority to exercise discretion in the enforcement of our immigration laws, to take necessary actions to carry out the Executive’s authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act, and to establish national immigration enforcement policies and priorities. As such, they are traditional exercises of prosecutorial discretion that have been frequently used by administrations of both political parties for more than sixty years and repeatedly recognized by federal courts, including the Supreme Court. As stated in the brief: “Congress has vested the Secretary of Homeland Security with broad discretion to determine how best to implement the immigration laws, including the particular decisions embodied in the Deferred Action Memorandum.”

The brief argues that House Democrats, as representatives of diverse communities across the United States, “have witnessed how an approach to enforcement of the immigration laws that does not focus on appropriate priorities, such as felons or national security threats, undermines confidence in the Nation’s immigration laws, wastes resources, and needlessly divides families.” These deferred action programs are vital for appropriately using limited enforcement resources, shoring up America’s economy and strengthening families.

As stated in the brief, the district court’s ruling extends much broader than its procedural rationale under the Administrative Procedures Act, as it challenges “Congress’s decision to commit to the Secretary the discretion to set enforcement priorities and to determine how best to implement those priorities—including, if necessary, by channeling how subordinate agency personnel exercise their own discretion in enforcing federal law.” The Democratic Members’ brief makes it clear that the district court’s decision interferes not only with the Executive’s authority granted by Congress, but also Congress’s authority: “The ruling therefore threatens the Executive’s ability to enforce statutes, within resource constraints, in a manner that remains faithful to Congress’s intent, and in turn threatens Congress’s ability to enact effective legislation.”

Does this help us?