Will the Supreme Court Uphold Immigration Policy by Executive Fiat Next?

37621686_0dcd0e12e5_oThe Supreme Court has just decided two landmark cases. The first (King v. Burwell) was a decision to allow the federal government to offer subsidies in states that had not set up healthcare marketplace “exchanges” despite the fact that, according to Chief Justice Roberts, this ruling forced the Court to “depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase.” The second decision (Obergefell v. Hodges) found that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage under the Fourteenth Amendment.

These high-profile cases raise questions about how the Court may rule on Obama’s definitively illegal and clearly unconstitutional actions to unilaterally grant amnesty to millions of illegal aliens and circumvent restrictions on the importation of foreign guest workers. At this point it is not certain that the case (Texas v. U.S.) will proceed any further than the Fifth Circuit.

If it does reach the Supreme Court, it will be the ultimate test of whether or not the American people, through their elected representatives, have any say over the nation’s immigration policies. If Justice Scalia is correct in his dissent from King v. Burwell that “words no longer have meaning” for the Court, than it is not a safe bet that a plain reading of statutes and a clear understanding of Congress’ intent will influence the thinking of the majority of the Justices in deciding Texas v. U.S.

This is why it is imperative that Congress act. The Republicans now control Congress, yet they have done nothing to prevent President Obama from violating the law and subverting the Constitution. Constitutionalists may rail against Justices Roberts and Kennedy (with good cause), but if Obama eventually gets his way on immigration through a favorable Court ruling, it will be John Boehner and Mitch McConnell who are most to blame.

About Author


The latest guest opinion pieces from FAIR.


  1. avatar

    The Supreme Court will vote however obama tells them to vote. He will threaten them as he did with same sex marriage and obamacare or bribe them. Either way he will make sure they vote the way he wants them to. We no longer are the America our forefathers set up for us. obama has robbed us of that and is installing his own muslim communist agenda to “TRANSFORM” America.

  2. avatar

    This rogue supreme court could rule either way on Obama’s illegally giving Amnesty to Illegals. I expect the Roberts’ court to rule, as it has in previous cases, that Obama’s illegal activities are legal. This court can not be trusted to use the constitution in making any ruling because they are in Obama’s back pocket. When you have two justices who conducted gay and lesbian marriages making a ruling on whether the 34 states that have laws saying whether marriage is between one man and one woman or can it also be between one man and one man or between one woman and one woman. Then you have tyranny by the government. These individuals (Kagan and Ginsberg) should have recused themselves from the ruling because they have shown their propensity to accept and make homosexuality and lesbianism legal without any foundation or legality.

    • avatar

      You are correct. But what can be done to stop this? I say nothing, because the Democrats (meaning socialists) took over our school system some 60 years ago and have indoctrinated the majority of Americans to be liberal socialists (Democrats). Even if you could get all Republicans in the House and Senate to agree to do something about this, they would probably have the necessary votes in the House, but would fall short of the mandatory 67 votes in the Senate to impeach any of the justices. Democrats do not have any morals and ethics and will vote to protect one of their own. They are a different bred from Republicans who would quickly punish one of their own if he had done what the 5 justices did on the marriage ruling and what the 6 justices did on the ObamaCare ruling. We have tyranny by the US Government now and for the future as long as justices on the Supreme Court are appointed for life. Bad news, but I am afraid this will not change for the next 20 years.

  3. avatar

    It really is awkward when you have to wonder if the Supreme Court will follow the law.

  4. avatar

    The Republicans have no power to do anything. It needs 60 votes in the senate and there are only 55 R and even it were to pass by a miracle, the anointed one will veto it, and they don’t have the votes to over ride it

    • avatar

      You have somewhat of a point, but there are still things that can be done. Like introducing a series of separate bills, starting with one requiring e-verify for every job. You would only need 5 Democrats to support that and those who don’t support it would have to explain why American jobs should not be reserved for American workers. Yes, it would get vetoed but that only puts the president on record as vetoing something the American people are in favor of. The Republicans promised they would introduce these kinds of bills when they became the majority, but they won’t do it. They could at least try.

      • avatar

        Great idea, but McConnell and Boehner are Obama enablers and thus will not let anything happen to him. When the Republicans took control of the House and Senate in 2014, McConnell and Boehner had a meeting and the results were two things they would never do. Impeach Obama or shut down the government. This just gave away the bank because Obama can now do anything he wants with impunity. What a government!

    • avatar

      It’s nice to see the Supreme Court getting it right. I’m confident they will also get it right on immigration issues.

      • avatar

        Sue, are you crazy? The Supreme Court just had two rulings that were not supported by the constitution or the majority of the people. This means we have a tyrannical government and are no different than any Third-World country like Iran or Syria.

      • avatar
        Not Politically Correct on


        You’re on the wrong site. You need to be on Kiss Obama’s A$$.com

  5. avatar

    What does the 14th amendment say about polygamy? Seems as though if two people of same gender have rights to marriage why not people with multiple partners of the opposite gender, I could think,of some other versions of this theme. Obama needs illegal and greater immigration as same sex marriage certainly is not going to significantly increase the U.S. Population unless those favoring this fundamental change in America start providing sperm donations.

  6. avatar

    We need some other legal challenges, if one fails. Take a clue from the ACLU as that is what their strategy is: If you fail in one place try to gain a toehold somewhere else and establish precedent.

    We might be able to challenge the legality of state issued drivers licenses for illegals. International treaty actually calls for a license and International Drivers Permit. Can’t we sue on the terms of that Treaty (1949 Geneva Convention on Roads).

    And why are they allowed to openly harass Congress members and government officials. The Foreign Agents Registration Act was intended to restrict foreign influence in our government. Yet they openly demonstrate right to our very own Congress and demand changes to suit themselves. Aren’t we supposed to draw the line somewhere on foreign lobbying?

  7. avatar

    Yeah, the Republicans fail to put their money where their mouth is. That’s all we heard last fall, vote for us and we will overturn executive amnesty. But in the end, how many of these people can you trust? Like Hillary, who ten years ago was all for enforcement and now vows to go beyond what has already been announced by the president.

    It’s ironic that Hillary went to Ferguson Missouri this week to declare that racism was far from over. The ironic part is that she goes to a city where officer Darren Wilson was justified in his actions. The Eric Holder Dept. of Justice, which would have loved to charge Wilson with federal crimes, not only did not indict him, but said the forensic evidence completely backed his story.

    And yet here comes Hillary to imply that Michael Brown was some kind of victim when he was actually a strong arm robber who tried to take a cop’s gun away. All she’s doing is pouring gasoline on racial relations in this country so she can pander for votes. Totally irresponsible.

  8. avatar

    We have ceased to be our own rulers. We are supposed to have a system of checks and balances, but there really is not an effective check on the Supreme Court and its rulings once its members have been appointed to life terms.