Tag Archives: United States v. Texas

Analyzing oral arguments in United States v. Texas

by Adam White — Tuesday, Apr. 19, 2016

Wednesday, April 20, 2016 | 4:00 PM – 5:00 PM Eastern | Teleconference Today the Supreme Court heard oral argument in United States v. Texas, one of the year’s most closely watched cases on constitutional and administrative law. The State of Texas and other plaintiffs challenge the Department of Homeland Security’s guidance on enforcement of […]

U.S. v. Texas – A Correction that Strengthens the Argument, by Michael Kagan

by Guest Blogger — Tuesday, Apr. 12, 2016

Earlier this week, in my commentary on Texas’ brief in the DAPA case, I wrote that “In order to get a Social Security number, non-citizens must be ‘lawfully present in the United States as determined by the [Secretary].’” That’s actually not quite correct. A non-citizen must be deemed “lawfully present” to receive Social Security benefits. […]

U.S. v. Texas – Texas Narrows Its Attack, by Michael Kagan

by Guest Blogger — Saturday, Apr. 9, 2016

Last month I offered some thoughts on the Obama Administration’s opening brief in United States v. Texas, the pending Supreme Court challenge to the President’s deferred action policies for unauthorized immigrants (known as DAPA and DACA). Texas has now filed its brief opposing the programs. Looking at this from the 10,000 foot level, there are […]

But See Legal Scholars Amicus Brief in United States v. Texas

by Chris Walker — Monday, Apr. 4, 2016@chris_j_walker

Last month I highlighted an amicus brief by the “who’s who” of administrative law professors in support the Federal Government in United States v. Texas, in which they argue that the Obama Administration’s executive actions on immigration constitute a general statement of policy and thus are not subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking. Today legal scholars Ronald […]

Administrative Law Professors’ Amicus Brief in United States v. Texas

by Chris Walker — Saturday, Mar. 12, 2016@chris_j_walker

Earlier this week my co-blogger Michael Kagan had a great post on the Federal Government’s opening brief in United States v. Texas—the Supreme Court case regarding the Obama Administration’s executive actions on immigration that will be argued in April. I wanted to highlight one of the amicus briefs in support of the United States by […]

U.S. v. Texas – Some Observations as the Briefing Begins, by Michael Kagan

by Guest Blogger — Wednesday, Mar. 9, 2016

Last week the Obama Administration filed its opening brief in United States v. Texas, the pending case at the Supreme Court challenging President Obama’s immigration deferred action programs, known as DACA and DAPA. We haven’t seen Texas’ brief yet, but here are some initial reactions: Justice Scalia’s Mixed Legacy for Deferred Action Justice Scalia’s death […]

Notice and Comment Ex Post (and Ex Ante), by Daniel Hemel

by Daniel Hemel — Friday, Jan. 29, 2016

My co-blogger Andy Grewal expresses skepticism that the Obama administration can cure the notice-and-comment problem in United States v. Texas by initiating notice-and-comment proceedings now and then promulgating its Deferred Action for Parents of Americans policy as a new final rule. In aprior post, I said it seems “pretty clear” that such an approach would […]

Mooting the APA Challenge to Obama’s Immigration Policy

by Andy Grewal — Wednesday, Jan. 27, 2016

In a characteristically thoughtful post, my co-blogger Daniel Hemel considers a puzzle raised by the ongoing battle over the Obama administration’s decision to offer relief to some unlawful aliens. The Supreme Court, in United States v. Texas, will soon consider the legality of the administration’s actions under the “Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and […]

Notice and Comment, Behavioral Economics, and United States v. Texas, by Daniel Hemel

by Daniel Hemel — Monday, Jan. 25, 2016

In many respects, the Supreme Court’s cert grant earlier this week in United States v. Texas was utterly unsurprising. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a nationwide injunction blocking a Department of Homeland Security policy that would have allowed approximately 4 million parents of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents to seek “deferred action” […]