{ "id": "R43839", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "R43839", "active": true, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 454794, "date": "2016-08-01", "retrieved": "2016-10-17T19:39:31.126152", "title": "State Challenges to Federal Enforcement of Immigration Law: From the Mid-1990s to the Present", "summary": "States and localities can have significant interest in the manner and extent to which federal officials enforce provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) regarding the exclusion and removal of unauthorized aliens. Depending upon the jurisdiction\u2019s specific concerns, this interest can be expressed in various ways, from the adoption of \u201csanctuary\u201d policies limiting the jurisdiction\u2019s cooperation in federal enforcement efforts to the enactment of measures to deter unauthorized aliens from entering or remaining within the jurisdiction. In some cases, states or localities have also sued to compel federal officials to enforce the INA and other relevant laws. \nIn the mid-1990s, six states which were then home to over half the unauthorized aliens in the United States\u2014Arizona, California, Florida, New Jersey, New York, and Texas\u2014each filed suit alleging that federal officials\u2019 failure to check unauthorized migration violated the Guarantee and Invasion Clauses of the Constitution, the Tenth Amendment, and provisions of the INA. Concerns regarding standing\u2014or who is a proper party to seek relief from a federal court\u2014were sometimes noted. However, even when standing was assumed, the constitutional claims were seen to involve nonjusticiable \u201cpolitical questions,\u201d or failed on their merits. The states\u2019 statutory claims were similarly seen to involve matters committed to agency discretion by law and, thus, not reviewable by the courts. In three cases, the courts also noted that federal officials\u2019 alleged failure to control unauthorized migration did not constitute a reviewable \u201cabdication\u201d of their statutory duties. \nOver a decade later, in 2011, Arizona asserted counterclaims challenging the federal government\u2019s alleged failure to stop unauthorized migration in the litigation over Arizona\u2019s S.B. 1070 measure. Although the court presumed that Arizona had standing, it rejected Arizona\u2019s claims regarding violations of the Invasion and Domestic Violence Clauses, Tenth Amendment, and immigration laws. Some claims were seen as precluded or otherwise settled by the earlier litigation. Others were found to involve nonjusticiable political questions, or otherwise failed. The court also rejected the argument that federal officials had abdicated their statutory duties. \nSubsequently, in 2012, Mississippi, along with some U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, challenged the Obama Administration\u2019s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) initiative on the grounds that it runs afoul of the Take Care Clause, separation of powers, INA, and Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The ICE agents initially prevailed in their claim that DACA is contrary to the INA, although their case was ultimately dismissed on other grounds. However, Mississippi was found to lack standing because it could not show that aliens granted deferred action would have been removed had the Executive not implemented DACA. \nMost recently, in December 2014, over 25 states or state officials filed suit challenging the Administration\u2019s expansion of DACA and the creation of a DACA-like program for aliens who are parents of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents (known as DAPA). The states allege that these programs run afoul of the Take Care Clause and separation of powers principles of the Constitution, the INA, and substantive and procedural requirements of the APA. After finding that the states have standing, and that DAPA and the DACA expansion are judicially reviewable, a federal district court imposed a preliminary nationwide ban on the implementation of these programs in February 2015, on the grounds that the states are likely to prevail in their argument that the programs run afoul of the APA\u2019s procedural requirements. Subsequently, in November 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the lower court\u2019s finding as to the procedural violation of the APA, and also found for the states on their claim that DAPA and the DACA expansion substantively violate the APA because these programs are \u201cnot in accordance with law\u201d and \u201cin excess of statutory ... authority.\u201d The Supreme Court granted review, but the Justices ultimately split evenly, four votes to four votes. Consistent with recent practice in cases with such splits, the Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit\u2019s decision without issuing an opinion.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R43839", "sha1": "294b996b88e0e4c12b5c3905268a3b2b23388fa1", "filename": "files/20160801_R43839_294b996b88e0e4c12b5c3905268a3b2b23388fa1.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R43839", "sha1": "422a67cad0ca4f4044ae586a43451e5e70001ce0", "filename": "files/20160801_R43839_422a67cad0ca4f4044ae586a43451e5e70001ce0.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4886, "name": "Unauthorized Migrants & Immigration Enforcement & Removal" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 451986, "date": "2016-01-27", "retrieved": "2016-05-24T19:30:14.984941", "title": "State Challenges to Federal Enforcement of Immigration Law: Historical Precedents and Pending Litigation in Texas v. United States", "summary": "States and localities can have significant interest in the manner and extent to which federal officials enforce provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) regarding the exclusion and removal of unauthorized aliens. Depending upon the jurisdiction\u2019s specific concerns, this interest can be expressed in various ways, from the adoption of \u201csanctuary\u201d policies limiting the jurisdiction\u2019s cooperation in federal enforcement efforts to the enactment of measures to deter unauthorized aliens from entering or remaining within the jurisdiction. In some cases, states or localities have also sued to compel federal officials to enforce the INA and other relevant laws. \nIn the mid-1990s, six states which were then home to over half the unauthorized aliens in the United States\u2014Arizona, California, Florida, New Jersey, New York, and Texas\u2014each filed suit alleging that federal officials\u2019 failure to check unauthorized migration violated the Guarantee and Invasion Clauses of the Constitution, the Tenth Amendment, and provisions of the INA. Concerns regarding standing\u2014or who is a proper party to seek relief from a federal court\u2014were sometimes noted. However, even when standing was assumed, the constitutional claims were seen to involve nonjusticiable \u201cpolitical questions,\u201d or failed on their merits. The states\u2019 statutory claims were similarly seen to involve matters committed to agency discretion by law and, thus, not reviewable by the courts. In three cases, the courts also noted that federal officials\u2019 alleged failure to control unauthorized migration did not constitute a reviewable \u201cabdication\u201d of their statutory duties. \nOver a decade later, in 2011, Arizona asserted counterclaims challenging the federal government\u2019s alleged failure to stop unauthorized migration in the litigation over Arizona\u2019s S.B. 1070 measure. Although the court presumed that Arizona had standing, it rejected Arizona\u2019s claims regarding violations of the Invasion and Domestic Violence Clauses, Tenth Amendment, and immigration laws. Some claims were seen as precluded or otherwise settled by the earlier litigation. Others were found to involve nonjusticiable political questions, or otherwise failed. The court also rejected the argument that federal officials had abdicated their statutory duties. \nSubsequently, in 2012, Mississippi, along with some U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, challenged the Obama Administration\u2019s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) initiative on the grounds that it runs afoul of the Take Care Clause, separation of powers, INA, and Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The ICE agents initially prevailed in their claim that DACA is contrary to the INA, although their case was ultimately dismissed on other grounds. However, Mississippi was found to lack standing because it could not show that aliens granted deferred action would have been removed but for DACA. \nMost recently, in December 2014, over 25 states or state officials filed suit challenging the Administration\u2019s expansion of DACA and the creation of a DACA-like program for aliens who are parents of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents (known as DAPA). The states allege that these programs run afoul of the Take Care Clause and separation of powers principles of the Constitution, the INA, and substantive and procedural requirements of the APA. After finding that the states have standing, and that DAPA and the DACA expansion are judicially reviewable, a federal district court enjoined implementation of these programs on February 16, 2015, on the grounds that the states are likely to prevail in their argument that the programs run afoul of the APA\u2019s procedural requirements. Subsequently, on November 9, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the lower court\u2019s finding as to the procedural violation of the APA, and also found for the states on their claim that DAPA and the DACA expansion substantively violate the APA because these programs are \u201cnot in accordance with law\u201d and \u201cin excess of statutory ... authority.\u201d The federal government then sought review from the Supreme Court, which granted its petition for certiorari on January 19, 2016. In so doing, the Court indicated that it would also consider the plaintiffs\u2019 Take Care Clause claims.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R43839", "sha1": "e8330f3bb8ceb0d64c6c15d39acd82d300333f48", "filename": "files/20160127_R43839_e8330f3bb8ceb0d64c6c15d39acd82d300333f48.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R43839", "sha1": "6c34ad3f15debbb72d072ac3383e77adb826e17b", "filename": "files/20160127_R43839_6c34ad3f15debbb72d072ac3383e77adb826e17b.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 676, "name": "Immigration Policy" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc808511/", "id": "R43839_2015May12", "date": "2015-05-12", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "State Challenges to Federal Enforcement of Immigration Law: Historical Precedents and Pending Litigation in Texas v. United States", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20150512_R43839_5a2b2f7dba23364545f85989571c542087aa24d1.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20150512_R43839_5a2b2f7dba23364545f85989571c542087aa24d1.html" } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc501824/", "id": "R43839_2014Dec31", "date": "2014-12-31", "retrieved": "2015-03-30T22:03:27", "title": "State Challenges to Federal Enforcement of Immigration Law: Historical Precedents and Pending Litigation", "summary": "This report provides an overview of prior and pending challenges by states to federal officials' alleged failure to enforce the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) or other provisions of immigration law. It begins by discussing the lawsuits filed by six states in the mid-1990s; Arizona's counterclaims to the federal government's suit to enjoin enforcement of S.B. 1070; and Mississippi's challenge to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) initiative. It then describes the challenge brought by over 20 states in 2014 to the recently announced expansion of DACA and the creation of a similar program for unlawfully present aliens whose children are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent resident aliens (LPRs). The report concludes by exploring how the pending litigation resembles, and differs from, the prior litigation.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20141231_R43839_6a02873262be59a0e71b4b29e215436442725e7a.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20141231_R43839_6a02873262be59a0e71b4b29e215436442725e7a.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Immigration", "name": "Immigration" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Immigration law", "name": "Immigration law" }, { "source": "KWD", "id": "Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952", "name": "Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952" } ] } ], "topics": [ "Constitutional Questions", "Intelligence and National Security" ] }