Tuesday, February 9, 2016
Yesterday, the SCOTUSBlog on-line symposium commenced with two posts. We posted previously about the introductory contribution by Jay Sekelow of the American Center for Law and Justice.
The second contribution ("Symposium: Unable to show harm, can Texas employ the Court as a political referee?" is by Anne Egeler is Deputy Solicitor General for the State of Washington. She was on an amicus brief on behalf of Washington, fourteen other states, and the District of Columbia in support the grant of certiorari in United States v. Texas. Egeler makes a standing argument:
"The bottom line is that the lower courts erred by allowing Texas to pursue a political grievance without showing any real harm. The nationwide injunction is preventing the states and their residents from receiving the substantial economic, public safety, and humanitarian benefits that will flow from the president’s immigration actions. Hopefully, the Supreme Court will recognize these realities, reverse the Fifth Circuit, and allow the president to make the same sorts of immigration enforcement decisions that his predecessors have made for decades. We all stand to benefit."
Dan Stein, President of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, offers a defense of the Fifth Circuit ruling on separation of powers grounds in Why United States v. Texas is the most important case the Court will decide this year.
In "Why it’s time to unfreeze DAPA," Brianne Gorod, Chief Counsel at the Constitutional Accountability Center and co-author of an amicus brief on behalf of a bipartisan group of former members of Congress in support of the Obama administration petition for certiorari in United States v. Texas, defends the administration's exercise of prosecutorial discretion in formulating DAPA.