President Obama's DAPA Order Oversteps His Immigration Powers

Obama's action is good policy, bad law, and terrible precedent.


[On Thursday, constitutional scholars Ilya Shapiro and Ilya Somin will debate the constitutionality of President Obama's executive order immigration in an event at Reason's Washington, DC office moderated by Reason Foundation Senior Analyst Shikha Dalmia. Both scholars are previewing their arguments at today. Read Somin's case for the constitutionality of Obama's order here.]

One test of the integrity of legal scholars is when they can cite an example of a good policy they find illegal or unconstitutional. An example of that for me is President Obama's Deferred Action for Parents of Citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA).

Immigration is quite possibly the most feckless part of the federal government. More than advancing bad policy, our immigration system consists of schizophrenic laws that don't advance any particular goal.  If you tried to draw up rules for how foreigners enter a country, how long they can stay, and what they can do here, you'd be hard-pressed to come up with anything worse than our hodge-podge of conflicting regulations.

This immigration non-policy serves nobody's interest, except perhaps lawyers and bureaucrats. And yet Congress has shamelessly refused to fix it. 

This unfortunate circumstance, however, doesn't give the executive branch the power to rewrite the law itself. Yet in November 2014, President Obama did exactly that when he unveiled DAPA, which officially defers deportations and grants temporary legal status to more than four million illegal aliens, entitling them to work authorizations and other benefits. 

In what has become a routine occurrence, 26 states sued the government in response to this executive action and a federal district court enjoined DAPA in February 2015. Cato filed amicus briefs supporting the Texas-led lawsuit at every stage of the legal proceedings, which we've done only in the most extraordinary cases. Before the Supreme Court, our brief was joined by libertarian legal luminary Randy Barnett.

I've written before that this unilateral action is good policy, bad law, and terrible precedent. To be clear, Cato scholars have long supported immigration reform that would provide relief to the aliens protected by DAPA—among many other classes of people—but it's not for the president to make such legislative changes alone.

Now, the injunction that the Supreme Court is reviewing is based on the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which sets out the process that federal agencies must follow to issue new regulations. DAPA was styled as "guidance"—in a memo from the Secretary of Homeland Security to his underlings—so the administration argues that it need not go through the APA's official "notice and comment" channels. This technical issue, along with the arcane matter of whether the states have "standing" to sue, may be the key to the high court's ruling (or, post-Scalia, if the justices split 4-4, they'll leave the injunction in place without further opinion). But the underlying question of whether DAPA complies with the relevant immigration laws and constitutional provisions is much more interesting.

President Obama defends his action by citing past deferrals for: battered and abused aliens; aliens involved in human trafficking; foreign students affected by Hurricane Katrina; widows of U.S. citizens; and spouses and children of people who had been granted legal status. But these deferred actions served as temporary bridges from one legal status to another, not tunnels that undermine legislative structure or detours around the law. They were also all approved by Congress.

None of these apply here. The administration itself stated the applicable test in the Justice Department memorandum setting out DAPA's legal justification: "an agency's enforcement decisions should be consonant with, rather than contrary to, the congressional policy underlying the statutes the agency is charged with administering." This executive action represents a fundamental rewrite of the laws that is inconsistent with the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA)—a "policy" that, again, I by no means endorse.

But don't take it from me. Here are arguments from a more prominent constitutional lawyer: 

  •  "America is a nation of laws, which means [the president is] obligated to enforce the law…With respect to the notion that [the president] can just suspend deportations through executive order, that's just not the case…There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for [the president] to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with [his] appropriate role as President." (March 28, 2011)
  • "If this was an issue that [the president] could do unilaterally, [Obama] would have done it a long time ago…The way our system works is Congress has to pass legislation. [The president] then get[s] an opportunity to sign it and implement it." (Jan. 30, 2013) 

These are but some examples of the 22 times that this executive-power expert has argued that DAPA wouldn't fly. Who is this person that felt the need to opine so many times? Barack Obama, who boasted after announcing the program that he "took an action to change the law." 

As law professors Peter Margulies (a progressive) and Josh Blackman (a libertarian) explain in recent law review articles, DAPA contradicts the INA, implementing under the guise of executive discretion wholesale waivers and suspensions that swallow the enforcement rule. Indeed, Congress rejected or failed to pass bills reflecting this policy several times, so executive power here is "at its lowest ebb," to use Justice Robert Jackson's famous formulation from the 1952 Steel Seizure Case.

In our constitutional architecture, executive action based on Congress's resistance to the president's agenda has no place. Countermanding congressional enactments is the epitome of a violation of the president's constitutional duty to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

While I strongly believe that immigration law needs to be overhauled, the path designed by the Framers for implementing such reforms goes through the halls of Congress. Unilateral exercises of power such as DAPA undermine the separation of powers and thus the rule of law.

Ilya Shapiro is a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute and editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review.

NEXT: Apparently Everyone Now Agrees Science Is Badly Broken

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Most of us want to have good income but don’t know how to do that on Internet there are a lot of methods to earn huge sum at home, so I thought to share with you a genuine and guaranteed method for free to earn huge sum of money at home anyone of you interested should visit the page. BE I am more than sure that you will get best result.VF01

    ——- http://www.E-cash10.COM


    2. You did not follow the fist of etiquette commenting rules, therefore you are not truly first.

  2. uptil I looked at the bank draft saying $8885 , I didn’t believe that my mother in law woz like they say truly taking home money in there spare time at their laptop. . there great aunt haz done this less than 17 months and as of now repayed the mortgage on there home and bourt a great Renault 4 . see

    Copy This Link inYour Browser

    1. This wuz gud inform. Thx.

    2. Your mother must have spent a lot of time on men’s laptops

  3. Does the surplus of Ilyas have anything to do with the spambots doubling up on this thread?

    1. when i saw the bank draft saying I had two Ilyas I didn’t believe it.

        1. Je suis Ilya!

          1. Dueling Ilyas …

            Paddle faster, I hear balalaika music …

            /Southern Ossetians AKA Georgia

  4. you’d be hard-pressed to come up with anything worse

    I’ve played madlibs before. Try me.

    1. SugarFree could come up with something worse without even breaking a sweat, if not for the fact that he sweats all the time on account of his metabolism being all fucked up.

  5. More than advancing bad policy, our immigration system consists of schizophrenic laws that don’t advance any particular goal.

    Sheesh, Ilya, why should immigration be any different?

    1. More than advancing bad policy, our immigration system consists of schizophrenic laws that don’t advance any particular goal.

      This immigration non-policy serves nobody’s interest, except perhaps lawyers and bureaucrats. And yet Congress has shamelessly refused to fix it.

      Schizophrenic laws are both the source of and the result of massive amounts of lobbying and campaign cash so I think there’s maybe one key constituency you’re overlooking there. Hint: it looks like an elephant and it’s over there shamelessly trying to hide behind the chesterfield.

  6. Ha! Clever trolling of the commentariat!

  7. As I understand it, neither of the Ilyas is defending Obama’s policy on its own terms.

    One of the Ilyas say the immigrations laws are unconstitutional, so the question of Presidential discretion wouldn’t arise.

    Ilya #2 says they’re constitutional and the President must enforce them.

    Where is Ilya #3 to say the immigration laws are constitutional but the President has the prerogative of suspending their enforcement.

      1. Ilya Kuryakin?

  8. Reason should stream this live. Turn it into an event.

  9. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do,


  10. you’d be hard-pressed to come up with anything worse

    Challenge Accepted.

    First step to immigration is the Career Aptitude Test. If you are found to be inept at most careers, you are granted free citizenship in this country, but you are forbidden from ever holding a job, but you qualify for a new type of wellfare which gives you a free mansion and enough money to live in luxury.

    Those who are adept at even the most basic of careers get the Labyrinth. They will be forced to traverse a literal maze filled with death traps, wild animals, Bureaucracy-Gates (gates you can only pass by filling out obscene amounts of paperwork), and (of course) starving fellow potential immigrants who are growing desperate.

    1. After you pass the Labyrinth, you gain a temporary visa that lets you stay in the country as long as you maintain a 4.0 GPA at a university. The university is filled with nothing but classes meant to indoctrinate those within it into a radical form of communism that teaches to suppress violently all expressions of uniqueness or free will. Passing your eight year education at this university makes you a citizen, provided you complete the Citizenship Oath, a simple oath promising to always betray America whenever possible and to always work to harm the country overall.

      To prevent overpopulation, when a new person attains citizenship, a citizen is randomly executed via inaccurate, collateral-damage filled drone assassination, and the possessions of that former citizen are given to the new citizen after a 93% tax.

      1. Annnd, because in short time, no one would WANT to come to America, a “forced immigration” campaign will be started, whereby we invade foreign nations, round up as many foreigners as possible, and FORCE them to immigrate to America.


    lets see how the sellouts rule!!

  12. uptil I saw the bank draft four $8760 , I be certain …that…my sister woz actually bringing in money part time from there labtop. . there neighbour had bean doing this 4 only about eighteen months and resently cleard the depts on there home and bourt a top of the range Chrysler ….

    Clik This Link inYour Browser….

    ? ? ? ?

  13. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8012 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…


  14. I’ve made $76,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student.I’m using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money.It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it.

    Open This LinkFor More InFormation..


  15. before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe that…my… brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop. . there uncles cousin has done this 4 less than fifteen months and by now repaid the dept on there place and got a great new Mini Cooper . read the full info here …

    Clik This Link inYour Browser??

    ? ? ? ?

  16. before I saw the bank draft which had said $9426 , I didnt believe that…my… brother woz like actualy earning money part-time at there labtop
    Blues vs Marrons Live Stream

  17. good Television displays, not really all of us discover period to Mobdro APK you will be sure to discover the specific points to view Mobdro Download nice.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.