US Supreme Court may be divided over immigration suit that includes Nevada

WASHINGTON — Conservative Supreme Court justices expressed sharp skepticism about President Barack Obama’s immigration efforts Monday, leaving his actions to help millions of people who are in the country illegally in the hands of a seemingly divided court.

As hundreds of pro-immigration demonstrators and a smaller number of opponents filled the sidewalk outside the court, the justices appeared to split along ideological and partisan lines over a case that pits Republican governors and members of Congress against the Democratic administration.

President Barack Obama’s administration is asking the justices to allow it to put in place two programs that could shield roughly 4 million people from deportation and make them eligible to work in the United States.

Texas is leading a coalition of 26 Republican-led states, which includes Nevada, in challenging the programs that Obama announced in 2014 and that have been put on hold by lower courts. Those states say the administration usurped power that belongs to Congress, and Justice Anthony Kennedy indicated some support for that view.

“It’s as if … the president is setting the policy and the Congress is executing it. That’s just upside down,” Kennedy said.

Chief Justice John Roberts also aggressively questioned Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr., suggesting there are few limits to the president’s power under the administration’s view of immigration law.

“Under your argument, could the president grant deferred removal to every … unlawfully present alien in the United States right now?” Roberts asked.

“Definitely not,” Verrilli said. But it was not clear Roberts was satisfied with the answer and subsequent explanation.

Nevada Attorney General Adam Paul Laxalt, a Republican, and U.S. Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada used the court’s oral arguments as another opportunity to lay out their opposing views on the contentious case.

Laxalt reaffirmed the position he laid out in testimony he provided in 2015 that Obama disregarded checks and balances in the Constitution.

Reid said again that not only was the president’s executive action legal but the only option left by congressional inaction.

“Today marks an important day for the rule of law,” Laxalt said in a written statement.

“The intent of the states’ lawsuit is not to give an opinion about immigration policy — that is the job of president working with Congress — but to restore the balance of power between the president and Congress.”

Reid said the Supreme Court “must do the right thing and recognize President Obama’s authority.”

“That is why I joined 38 other Senate Democrats and 186 House Democrats in filing an amicus brief with the Supreme Court, making clear that Congress granted the Department of Homeland Security broad discretion in enforcing our country’s immigration laws,” Reid said in remarks on the Senate floor.

The programs would apply to parents of children who are citizens or are living in the country legally. Eligibility also would be expanded for the president’s 2012 effort that applies to people who were brought here illegally as children. More than 700,000 people have taken advantage of that earlier program, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. The new program for parents, known as Deferred Action for Parents of Americans, and the expanded program for children could reach as many as 4 million people, according to the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute.

If the court is split ideologically, the case could end in a 4-4 tie following Justice Antonin Scalia’s death in February. That would leave the programs in limbo, almost certainly through the end of Obama’s presidency.

Review-Journal Washington Bureau writer Jim Myers contributed to this report.