The New York Times editorial board condemned the legal challenge to President Obama’s executive actions on immigration as “a highly politicized anti-immigrant crusade wrapped in legal briefs.”
On April 18, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in U.S. v. Texas, the challenge to the Obama administration’s programs that could protect 4 million undocumented immigrants from deportation and grant them the legal right to hold a job. Right-wing media have pushed misinformation about the programs, falsely claiming that they will cause a “constitutional crisis,” lead to Obama’s impeachment, cost $2 trillion, and harm American workers.
On April 16, the Times’ editorial board called the case “one of the most flagrant examples in recent memory of a naked political dispute masquerading as a legal one,” and wrote that the Supreme Court “should reject the plaintiffs’ absurd claim.” The board explained that the actions are, in fact, “well within Mr. Obama’s authority,” given that -- as the Supreme Court observed in 2012 -- “the federal government has ‘broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration and the status of aliens.’” The board then concluded that Obama’s executive actions to shield the parents of American citizens and permanent residents from deportation are “smart politics and humane policy” and condemned the challenge as “a highly politicized anti-immigrant crusade”:
On Monday, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in United States v. Texas, one of the most flagrant examples in recent memory of a naked political dispute masquerading as a legal one.
In this case, 26 Republican-led states brought suit against President Obama’s November 2014 executive actions to protect millions of immigrants from deportation. And once again, the prospect of a 4-to-4 split on the court threatens to spur widespread legal chaos by effectively giving these 26 states the power to set national immigration policy. But it need not come to that. If the justices follow their own precedent as well as longstanding practice, they should reject the plaintiffs’ absurd claim.
This is both smart politics and humane policy, and it falls well within Mr. Obama’s authority. As the Supreme Court reiterated in 2012, the federal government has “broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration and the status of aliens.”
Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. likes to say that the court is above politics. This case, which has never been more than a highly politicized anti-immigrant crusade wrapped in legal briefs, gives him and the court a clear opportunity to reaffirm that principle and leave fights like these to the political process.