Ryan: House Will File Supreme Court Brief in Executive Amnesty Case

House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) announced Tuesday that the House will vote on a resolution to file an amicus brief in the Supreme Court case challenging President Obama’s authority to grant executive amnesty to millions of illegal aliens without congressional approval.

In a closed-door meeting, Ryan informed his House Republican colleagues of the decision to vote on filing an amicus brief in U.S. v. Texas, the 26-state lawsuit challenging Obama’s November 2014 executive actions on immigration. The high court agreed to hear the case in January and will decide whether to uphold the injunction blocking the DAPA and expanded DACA amnesty programs until the case is litigated on the merits. The Court is expected to hear arguments in April and issue a ruling in June – just months before the 2016 presidential election.

Ryan explained that an attempt to file an amicus brief on behalf of the entire chamber is an “extraordinary step” and something that “has never been done before.” Below are his full remarks on the impending vote:

“In the coming weeks, we will be taking our next step to stop the president’s executive overreach. The House will vote on whether to file an amicus brief in the Supreme Court opposing the president’s executive amnesty. This is a very extraordinary step. In fact, it has never been done before.

“But this executive amnesty is a direct attack on the Congress’s Article One powers under our Constitution. This is a question between Article One and Article Two.

“The president is not permitted to write law—only Congress is. The House will make that very, very clear, and we will do so as an institution on behalf of the American people on behalf of representative self-government.”

The House decided to act only after the Supreme Court asked the parties to present arguments on a question beyond the three raised by the government in its petition for certiorari. The Court asked the parties to brief and argue whether DAPA and expanded DACA “violates the Take Care Clause of the Constitution, Art. II, §3.” The Take Care Clause mandates that the president “take care that the Laws be faithfully executed” and House Republicans believe Obama breached his constitutional duty.

The resolution is expected to pass when the House votes on it in the coming weeks.

About Author



  1. avatar

    Peter you indicated you are not a citizen of the United States, if that is true STFU, you have no business at all telling us ANYTHING about our country or laws. If you are an ignorant citizen of the EU, you need to work on keeping your nation (?) from becoming a socialist third world country.

    • avatar

      If the Supreme Court determines POTUS overstepped his bounds, what
      About all the DACA children go?
      Where is the $$ they paid & how is it to
      Be returned if deemed unconstitutional?

  2. avatar
    Glenn Nelson on

    The new way the “establishment gets around their responsibilities is to not impeach a President, but to take him to court. However, the court process will take years of time and again, cost the taxpayer for the time, lawyers, and other legal costs. Then they come to the citizens of this country on how Congress is working so hard to stop the corruption that both establishment parties and all their cronies are partaking in. At least Trump is breathing a opening of someone that will let us all know of what is going on. If Trump does get elected, will we have a lame duck president with the Republican party in place as the power of our government?

  3. avatar

    You,my dear, are as racist as can be. Look at the record and the President carried plenty of white voters, especially young people and well educated ones.
    None of us have a problem with legal immigration. Donald Trump is so correct established politicians have sold the country down the creek. No rules and regulations (Republican mantra) has ruined Immigration and the President jumped on the lax bandwagon.
    If the people demand a change to a very strict “immigration Policy,” instead of being a third world country like 80% of the world is now, we will have a great country. The variety of people will be capable as were the first Americans.
    The earlier immigrants had to have sponsors and pledge they would be self-sufficient, in other words, not draw off the country. There should be no benefits to anyone here illegally -(except limited medical) to get them back to their country.
    The first step is moving the criminals out, including those filing false documents and stealing ID’s. The next is a “turn around” policy for anyone in the U.S. illegally. The third is to go back to the original “Refugee” law that was replaced in 2008 as Legislators were running out the door. The law that let anyone who felt like it cross the border and be guaranteed a court hearing and to be taken care of until status was decided. (It takes 2 years plus-the courts are so backed up.)
    What else can we do? Don’t buy any large product not made in America. I have been do it for years and its worked great. I drive a Buick made in the U>S>A and wash my clothes in washers and dryers made in the U.S. Most will be marked but you can always ask.

    • avatar
      Not Politically Correct on


      You speak the truth. That tired old race card needs to be retired. I know several white people who voted for Obama as well. We now have our first black President and we have had several people in high positions in this country including Eric Holder, Condoleeza Rice, Loretta ***** and many others. Until today, Ben Carson was running for President. Everyone has equal opportunity to be great they just have to stop feeling sorry for themselves and playing the victim, pull themselves up by their own boot straps and do it.

  4. avatar

    Put the race card away. This is about whether the president has the right to make law which is what he is doing. He doesn’t, according to the constitution, if you bothered to read the article. Bush tried to say the president had the right to hold an American citizen, Jose Padilla, on terrorism charges indefinitely. The Supreme Court said no.

    • avatar

      Leland again you missed the point……how did you manage that?…….really? not a race card…it is a reality…and if you do not know that Pal…you are in the wrong country and time………

      The point is that it does not matter what Obama does…or you did not know your obsolete buddies in the republican party got together to swear to destroy Obama = The will of The People…instead of working with him…….lots of presidents have written executive powers the same way and even more….READ THE CONSTITUTION PAL again you are peeing off the bowl….

      how come Congress has not voted 2/3 on this?………….AHHHH!>>>>DuH!!’

      It appears you re off reality and unable to infer my writings…….you belong in Congress……

        • avatar

          The Dred Scott decision was more than a hundred fifty years ago, before the Civil War. It was made moot by the passage of the 14th amendment in the late 1860s. Nothing to do with now, so it just shows you have no argument.

          • avatar

            The 14th Amendment is Misinterpreted by the Open Border Pundits to Date

            When it comes to anchor babies…..a constitutional interpretation is needed on the 14th amendment by the courts to clear this mistake up. No….ya don’t need to change the Constitution to do that either.

            All foreign nationals aren’t African Slave Children.

          • avatar

            Wow!!!!… So you never understood what no change write!!????… Really….the while works and us in Europe that see things better than you guys know. .President Obama is not liked because he us Black…also Uam appalled you guys do not even understand your own Constitution….. Misinterpreted???…. Anchor babies???…..really!!??…everybody in. Europe knows you are all anchor babies…..:]

          • avatar

            SW if you read the 14th amendment it means anybody that is born within the US…….really…..now that we are 330M and 300 years later these problems are expected to happen…….so the day this is changed no longer Freedom…………

          • avatar

            Leland that is exactly my point…….Obama is still being seen as the black dude…..looking down upon by these representatives…….examples…..go back and watch the representative from the South calling him “Boy”…..or Bhoener…..or the US Supreme Court guy that di swear him in….looking at Obama with hate and bigotry…..

            I tell you in 20 years you will see this written on books and shown in documentaries….and probably Obama will write a book about it….you live in a bubble……I don t mean you don’t know anything I mean you are not aware of this….that is all…

            Let’s say that is the case and Obama is being prejudged because he is black Would you be kind enough to tell me where would you stand about this?

          • avatar

            Leland do not be afraid to answer ..whichever you answer is approve/disapprove you have the right to your opinion 7 your way of life/thinking and I respect that…….now if you answer honestly then you are a real American that stands behinds his convictions…AND THAT is what is lacking nowadays……