U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments on Obama immigration case

Immigrants and community leaders rally in front of the U.S. Supreme Court to mark the one-year anniversary of President Barack Obama's executive orders on immigration in Washington, in this file photo taken Nov. 20, 2015 Reuters

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Monday on the case involving President Barack Obama's immigration actions.

In November 2014, President Obama announced the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) that would prohibit the deportation of undocumented immigrants who have lived in the U.S. since 2010 and have children who are American citizens or permanent residents.

He also announced the expansion of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).

The following month, Texas and 25 other states sued the Obama administration over the new executive actions and in February last year, U.S. District Judge Andrew Henan of Texas issued a preliminary injunction against the new policy.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth District upheld the injunction that led to the Obama administration to seek relief from the U.S. Supreme Court.

In hearing the case, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide if the states have standing to sue over immigration policy, which the Obama administration contends is the sole responsibility of the federal government.

It will also decide on whether the Obama administration violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) when it issued the order without any notice.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said President Obama does not have the authority to implement the new immigration policies.

"We challenged it not just because of it's immigration policy. We challenged it because we don't think the President has the authority to change law and then impose that on the states, increasing our costs and putting pressure on our legislature to pay for things that we otherwise aren't responsible for paying for," said Paxton, according to CBN News.

The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the case in June.

If the Supreme Court justices' votes end in a tie of 4-4, the injunction would be in effect and the lower court will decide on the issue, according to VOX.

If Justice Anthony Kennedy or Chief Justice John Roberts joins the liberal members, the Obama administration will win the case and the lower court ruling will be overturned. If this happens, the DAPA can now be implemented.

related articles
Michigan lawmaker moves to limit number of Syrian refugees being resettled in state by federal U.S. government
Michigan lawmaker moves to limit number of Syrian refugees being resettled in state by federal U.S. government

Michigan lawmaker moves to limit number of Syrian refugees being resettled in state by federal U.S. government

Evangelicals think immigration threatens American values. Here\'s why they\'re wrong
Evangelicals think immigration threatens American values. Here's why they're wrong

Evangelicals think immigration threatens American values. Here's why they're wrong

Chicago church vandalised with swastika, hate messages; attack believed to be spurred by church support for immigration reform
Chicago church vandalised with swastika, hate messages; attack believed to be spurred by church support for immigration reform

Chicago church vandalised with swastika, hate messages; attack believed to be spurred by church support for immigration reform

Top Muslim human rights lawyer receives death threats for speaking out against extremism
Top Muslim human rights lawyer receives death threats for speaking out against extremism

Top Muslim human rights lawyer receives death threats for speaking out against extremism

U.S. changes naturalisation test to reflect \'freedom of religion\' instead of \'freedom of worship\'
U.S. changes naturalisation test to reflect 'freedom of religion' instead of 'freedom of worship'

U.S. changes naturalisation test to reflect 'freedom of religion' instead of 'freedom of worship'

An eye for an eye: How Trump\'s got the Bible wrong AGAIN and what it says about his campaign
An eye for an eye: How Trump's got the Bible wrong AGAIN and what it says about his campaign

An eye for an eye: How Trump's got the Bible wrong AGAIN and what it says about his campaign

News
End persecution of Apostolic Church, Armenia told
End persecution of Apostolic Church, Armenia told

The Armenian government claims it is trying to save the church.

Bridging the generational gap: what we can learn from Paul's relationship with Timothy
Bridging the generational gap: what we can learn from Paul's relationship with Timothy

The relationship between the Apostle Paul and Timothy offers a powerful lens for understanding how different generations can walk - and work - together despite their differences.

Slovenia votes in favour of assisted suicide
Slovenia votes in favour of assisted suicide

A number of countries have introduced the controversial practice.

Islamophobia definition could silence legitimate debate, say Christians
Islamophobia definition could silence legitimate debate, say Christians

The Christian Institute has cautioned that creating a formal definition of “Islamophobia” risks eroding free speech and stifling legitimate criticism of religion.