Tuesday evening at 6:30, I will be participating in a discussion at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia on United States v. Texas and the Take Care Clause. Here is a description of the event:
After the House declined to pass a Senate immigration bill, President Obama used his executive authority to defer the deportation of millions of immigrants living in the U.S. illegally. Is the President’s policy unconstitutional? Join us for this debate featuring celebrated constitutional scholars Josh Blackman, Adam Cox, Cristina Rodriguez, and Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz. Jeffrey Rosen, National Constitution Center president and CEO, moderates.
If you are in the area, please stop by. If nothing else, I’m sure we will offer a discussion of how Justice Scalia’s untimely passing affects this case. It is fitting to note his dissent in Arizona v. United States, which addressed the validity of DAPA (a policy not at issue in the case). By chance, I was in the Court when he delivered his blistering dissent from the bench. He had this to say:
After this case was argued and while it was under consideration, the Secretary of Home Land Security announced a program exempting from immigration enforcement some 1.4 million illegal immigrants.
A husbanding of scarce enforcement resources can hardly be the justification for this since those resources will be eaten up by the considerable administrative cost of conducting the non-enforcement program which will require as many as 1.4 million background checks and by any rulings on request for dispensation.
The President has said that the new program is “the right thing to do” in light of Congress’ failure to pass the administration’s proposed revision of the immigration laws.
Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so.
But to say as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of federal immigration law that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind.
I am deeply saddened we will never get to see what Justice Scalia would write about this United States v. Texas. We are all worse off for losing his wisdom, whether or not you agree with it.