In the first court opinion on the issue, a federal judge in Pennsylvania ruled that President Obama’s immigration actions are an unconstitutional abuse of presidential power.
U.S. District Court Judge Arthur Schwab, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote the opinion in relation to a criminal case he was reviewing. It appears to me he was looking to weigh in the matter, and the opinion may have little practical effect other than to raise awareness that the immigration fiat might be challengeable in court.
According to Fox News:
(Schwab) wrote that the action goes beyond so-called “prosecutorial discretion” — which is the “discretion” the administration cites in determining whether to pursue deportation against illegal immigrants . . .
Schwab . . . wrote that this “systematic and rigid process” applies to a “broad range” of enforcement decisions, as opposed to dealing with matters on a “case-by-case basis.”
Further, he wrote that the action goes beyond deferring deportation by letting beneficiaries apply for work authorization and allowing some to become “quasi-United States citizens.”
He also cited Obama’s argument that he was proceeding with executive action after Congress failed to act on comprehensive immigration legislation, and countered: “Congressional inaction does not endow legislative power with the Executive.”