To help Bernie, I will offer the following, from Wikipedia:
DACA May be unconstitutional
United States v. Texas, 579 U.S. ___ (2016), is a United States Supreme Court case regarding the constitutionality of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) program.
In a one-line per curiam decision, an equally divided Court affirmed the lower-court injunction blocking the President's program. The case had been decided by an eight-member bench due to the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._TexasSupreme Court of the United States
On November 10, 2015, the Justice Department announced it would ask the Supreme Court to reverse.[29] Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton attempted to prolong consideration of the case until the next October term but the Supreme Court only granted him an eight-day extension to file his opposition brief.[30] The Justice Department further hastened the case by waiving its right to file a reply brief.[31] On January 19, 2016 the Supreme Court agreed to review the case.[32] The Court took the unusual step of asking for briefing on the new constitutional question as to whether or not DAPA violates the Take Care Clause.[33]
Due to the subsequent death of Justice Antonin Scalia, the case was decided by eight justices. On April 18, 2016, the Court heard ninety minutes of oral arguments from Donald B. Verrilli Jr., the Solicitor General of the United States, an attorney for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund as an intervenor in support of the Government, Texas Solicitor General Scott Keller for the several states, and a Bancroft PLLC attorney representing the United States House of Representatives as a friend of Texas.[34] Commentators complained that the arguments were "one of the most flagrant examples in recent memory of a naked political dispute masquerading as a legal one."[35]
On June 23, 2016, the Supreme Court announced it had deadlocked 4-4 in a decision that read, in its entirety, “The judgement is affirmed by an equally divided court.”[36] The ruling set no precedent and simply left in place the lower court’s preliminary injunction blocking the program.[36] The case may reach the Supreme Court again after Judge Hanen has held a trial.[36]
President Obama immediately held a press conference criticizing the decision, where he blamed “spasms of politics around immigration and fear-mongering” as well as Senate Republicans for refusing to consider his nominee for the Supreme Court, Merrick Garland.[36][37] Former acting Solicitor General Walter Dellinger observed “seldom have the hopes of so many been crushed by so few words”.[36] Texas Attorney General Paxton praised the result because “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.”[36]
Legal challenges
See also: United States v. Texas
The legality of DACA and its proposed expansions were challenged in court. But only the expansions were halted under a preliminary injunction. Legal experts are divided as to the constitutionality of DACA, but no court has yet to rule it unconstitutional.[57].
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferred_ ... challengesThe challenge that was granted a preliminary injunction was filed on December 2014 by Texas and 25 other states—all with Republican governors. The group of states sued to enjoin the implementation of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA)—another immigration policy—and the DACA expansions announced by the Obama administration.[62][63][64] In the lawsuit, the states claimed that, by expanding DACA, the president failed to enforce the nation’s immigration laws in contravention to Article Two of the U.S. Constitution.[65][b] Moreover, the states claimed that the president unilaterally rewrote the law through his actions.[66] As part of the judicial process, in February 2015, Judge Andrew S. Hanen issued a preliminary injunction blocking the expansion from going into effect while the case, Texas v. United States, proceeded.[30][31] After progressing through the court system, an equally divided (4–4) Supreme Court left the injunction in place, without setting any precedent.[32] The court's temporary injunction did not affect the existing DACA. At the time, individuals were allowed to continue to come forward and request an initial grant of DACA or renewal of DACA under the guidelines established in 2012.[40]
Regardless of the outcome of the preliminary injunction, legal opinions on the lawfulness of DACA are divided. In United States v. Texas, for instance, the Obama administration argued that the policy was a lawful exercise of the enforcement discretion that Congress delegated to the executive branch in the Immigration and Nationality Act, which charges the executive with the administration and enforcement of the country’s immigration laws.[67] Conversely, Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, opined that DACA was unlawful by asserting that it unconstitutionally usurped Congress' role over immigration by illegally allowing certain classes of illegal aliens to violate U.S. immigration law with impunity.[68]
JP
Dukasaur wrote:Bernie Sanders wrote:To say DACA was illegal is wrong. Did I miss a Supreme Court decision saying this Executive Order was unconstitutional?
However, if Obama had brought it in by executive order, Trump wouldn't now be able to whisk it away by executive order.
Once upon a time there was an idea in the U.S. that the Congress should do the legislating. Sadly, this idea has been under attack almost from the beginning, and in the last 50 years has become almost extinct.
