WASHINGTON, DC –Today, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to review Texas v. United States, a case challenging the constitutionality of President Obama's executive actions on immigration, including the expansion of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and the initiation of Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA). MALDEF's clients, three mothers from South Texas, were the only parties granted intervention, joining the Obama Administration in defending the case as it moved through the Supreme Court.
The women intend to apply for DAPA once it is implemented. DAPA would protect parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents from removal and permit the parents to work with full legal protection. The women have party status, with all rights of parties, including briefing, argument, and participation in all case-related matters, as the case moves through the Supreme Court.
MALDEF President and General Counsel, Thomas A. Saenz, issued the following statement in response to today's SCOTUS decision:
“Today's order from the Supreme Court raises the welcome and important prospect that this politically-motivated lawsuit will no longer hold up the President's exercise of prosecutorial discretion — an authority that he and all of his predecessors have been granted by virtue of their election — and that the nation can implement a more rational immigration practice, including protections for this with longstanding and productive residency, until Congress moves forward with legislated immigration reform. We look forward to the Court's consideration of the case and its correction of the erroneous rulings by the courts in Texas.”
The firms of O'Melveny and Myers and DLA Piper join MALDEF in representing the intervening Jane Doe defendants in Texas v. United States.