Thursday, April 14, 2016
Amanda Frost on SCOTUSBlog observes that "one of the most important issues in [United States v. Texas, which will be argued on Monday] – whether Texas has standing to challenge these initiatives – has nothing to do with immigration law." She looks at different approaches to the standing question and concludes by stating that "[i]t will be interesting to see how much of that time is devoted to the question of whether the Court can hear the case at all."
In my contribution to a SCOTUSBlog commentary on United States v. Texas, I focus on the standing question and conclude with the following:
"Immigration reform is a contentious policy issue best left to the political branches of government. The litigation in this case in fact is part of a larger political struggle. Some political actors disliked the Obama administration’s discretionary policy judgment and went to federal court to stop that policy from being implemented (a ploy that apparently could not have been secured through Congress). The use of the federal courts as a political weapon in a national debate was precisely what the framers of Article III of the Constitution sought to prevent."
UPDATE (April 15): Marty Lederman on Balkinization looks closely at the standing arguments.