Will The Supreme Court Rule 5-3 In US v. TEXAS – And If So, Why?
This is the month that we have all been waiting for, the time for the Supreme Court to decide on the legality of the DAPA and expanded DACA programs (United States v. Texas, Docket #15-674). With 8 justices only as the Republicans refuse to make a move forward with the nomination of Judge Merrick Garland, the President’s choice, the vote could go 4-4, which would mean that the decision of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upholding Texas District Court Judge Andrew Hanen’s temporary stopping of the program would be upheld. However, the hope and belief on this end is that the decision will go the President’s way 5-3 if only on the issue of standing – whether the State of Texas has actually suffered such an injury which would allow it to bring a suit to court. In the oral argument of April 18, 2016, the question of whether Texas would suffer any injury at all was asked by Justice Sotomayor who pointed to the Texas affidavit estimating financial losses in dispensing drivers’ licenses to the approximate 5 million people who would benefit under the programs since they would have to ramp up their services, and asking why they would have to ramp up, why couldn’t they just let the people wait in line, that there was already a built-in profit of $25 for issuing a license, that 5 million people were not going to walk into DMV in one day, and that the numbers were going to be much less because not everybody was going to want to license to start with. Even if there was to be financial loss, Justice Breyer brought up the cases of Frothingham v. Mellon and Massachusetts v. Mellon in which the federal government had given something to some people and other people wanted to sue because they said they would have to pay more money and the latter side lost as they did not have the kind of interest that gave them standing just on the basis that as taxpayers, they would have to spend more money. The swing vote is expected to be Chief Justice Roberts who in the past has been a strong advocate of requiring concrete injury for parties to sue but who appeared in early parts of the argument to weaken on the issue in asking the U. S. Solicitor General pointed questions on why Texas would not have standing if, even if it decided not to issue licenses to the beneficiaries of the programs, it would find itself in litigation with either the U. S. government or the intervenors. The decision is widely expected by the end of June with one organization even predicting June 28th. |
