'U.S. v. Texas' is a masquerade: Opposing view

Don’t confuse U.S. v. Texas, the immigration case being argued before the Supreme Court, with a legal dispute. It’s a political fight masquerading as a lawsuit.

Before the ink was even dry on the Obama administration’s deferred action guidance  —  which offers a deportation reprieve to as many as 5 million undocumented immigrants with deep roots in America  —  Republicans in Congress tried unsuccessfully to block it.

The state of Texas, joined by Republican governors and attorneys general from 25 states, then launched a legal assault in the courtroom of U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen, who had made a name for himself in other cases excoriating the Obama administration.

As predicted, Hanen blocked the deportation deferrals and was later affirmed by the 5th Circuit, the most conservative appeals court in the country. At its core, the GOP lawsuit relies on these judges’ willingness to credit political diatribe over the plain language of the president’s policy. But not without disagreement. Fifth Circuit Judge Carolyn Dineen King, in a forceful dissent, concluded the lawsuit was a political dispute that had no place in court.

Republicans do not challenge the president’s authority to temporarily defer the removal of millions of hardworking parents and DREAMers. Nor can they. Since the Eisenhower administration, presidents have used temporary relief to shield undocumented immigrants from deportation.

What the states oppose is allowing these immigrants to work legally to support themselves and their families. Yet the law authorizing work permits has been on the books for nearly two decades.

Ultimately, what’s at stake in U.S. v. Texas is much more than immigration. Allowing individual states to challenge a president’s discretionary policy decisions would open the door to a floodgate of politically motivated lawsuits challenging myriad of policies.

Hopefully, the eight justices will see this case for what it is: a shameless political attack by Republicans on the president’s immigration executive actions. The issue should be decided at the ballot box, not in the Supreme Court.

David Leopold is a former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association