On Thursday, the Supreme Court finally handed down its long-awaited decision on President Obama’s much-ballyhooed executive action on immigration. Obama reacted by declaring that the court’s decision “takes us further from the country that we aspire to be.”
If you couldn’t guess from that, Obama lost the case.
This all began when Obama’s party was clobbered in the 2014 midterm elections. Seeing that Democrats would not control Congress again during his term, Obama responded by going into the legislative business himself. He announced a new policy of selective enforcement of immigration laws that would exempt nearly 5 million illegal immigrants from deportation.
Thursday’s 4-4 decision, which effectively upheld a lower court ruling that Obama’s action was illegal, did not have anything to do with the wisdom of one immigration policy over another. Its significance is that neither immigration nor any other topic can be legislated by a single person — not even if that person happens to be the president of the United States.
Obama seemed to understand this at one point. On at least 17 different occasions before November 2014, he specifically acknowledged that he lacked the power to change immigration law in this way. But times change when a president sees his legacy at stake.
“Today’s decision keeps in place what we have maintained from the very start,” said Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. “One person, even a president, cannot unilaterally change the law. This is a major setback to President Obama’s attempts to expand executive power, and a victory for those who believe in the separation of powers and the rule of law.”
Hours after the Supreme Court’s ruling was handed down, Obama defended his now-defunct executive action. He argued that given Congress’ inaction on immigration, “I was left with no choice but to take steps within my existing authority.”
This is precisely the reasoning that the courts had just rejected, and which the Constitution absolutely forbids. Under Article One, Congress makes the laws. The president has a veto, and he also has the power to enforce laws, but he does not have the power to alter them without congressional help.
When a president cannot get that help from Congress, as Obama couldn’t, then there is a lawful remedy. The answer to a do-nothing Congress is the next election, not the invention of new presidential powers.
Moreover, Obama’s whining about an inactive Congress is disingenuous. Throughout 2009 and 2010, even during the months when Democrats did not have a filibuster-proof majority, Congress could easily have passed a reasonable immigration reform bill. But Obama had other priorities. He pursued healthcare instead, and tried to use immigration as the wedge issue that would help Democrats prevail in the 2010 election. It didn’t work.
President Obama took office already standing on the shoulders of giant usurpations by earlier presidents. He has in the time since tried to stretch executive power even further.
Obama’s track record is evidenced by his many losses before the high court.
He lost unanimously when he claimed power to determine when the Senate was in recess so that he could make illegal recess appointments. He lost unanimously in attempting to rewrite employment law so that the federal government could dictate to churches whom they must hire or keep as ministers. He lost unanimously in claiming the power to make property owners live in limbo, unable either to develop their land or to appeal the government’s decision. These are just three of dozens of such cases.
This ruling was not unanimous, unfortunately. However you feel about immigration reform, you should find it frightening that there are four Supreme Court justices who feel that the president can just make the rules up, as long as he supports their preferred policy outcome.
This is an extremely short-sighted and unwise position for liberals to take, as they may not realize they will not always have one of their own in power. After all, if a President Obama can create immigration policy unilaterally, what is there to stop a President Trump from doing the same?
