Data Resources

Legal Resources


  1. Reply Brief for the Petitioners


Editorial Boards

  1. The Seattle Times: Supreme Court should uphold immigration executive order

    “About 11 million people are in the United States illegally, living and working throughout the country. They fit every profile, from farmworkers to college graduates to tech entrepreneurs.”

  2. The New York Times: The Supreme Court, the Nativists and Immigrants

    “Apart from the fallacious argument on the president’s powers, the states have no standing to sue. Texas claims that it has that right simply because it thinks the president’s orders would harm its economy. If the court were to accept this kind of claim, it would mean that any time a state or city opposed a federal action, it could drag that political dispute into the courts.”

  3. Los Angeles Times: Los Angeles Times Editorial, “Supreme Court Should Recognize The President's Power To Defer The Deportation Of Immigrants”

    “We are heartened that the justices said they would look specifically at the question of whether the president’s actions violate the constitutional admonition that the president must “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” In our view, that is just what he is doing in prioritizing targets for deportation.

    Not only is the president on sound legal ground, but he is adopting cogent public policy that shouldn't be hamstrung by politically motivated court challenges. The battle over immigration reform is a political fight that would ideally be resolved through legislation, but it has been left to dangle because of Congress' repeated failure to address it.”

  4. Boston Globe: Obama’s immigration order should stand

    “Likewise, the court should turn aside the Texas complaint, which looks more like a political stunt than a serious legal challenge, and could hobble the executive branch’s ability to respond to immigration crises in the future.”

  5. Miami Herald: Immigration is the president’s job

    “Now the U.S. Supreme Court has a chance to inject a needed dose of clarity into the picture by upholding President Obama’s priorities on who stays and who goes. Presidents, as well as prosecutors and law-enforcement officers, have always had the authority to exercise discretion in carrying out the law. Who gets a ticket and who gets a warning. Who gets charged with a felony and who gets charged with a misdemeanor. How far over the speed limit can you drive without getting a ticket?”

  6. The Baltimore Sun: Last word on immigration

    “Essentially what Mr. Obama has tried to do is prioritize deportation hearings, and given the number of undocumented immigrants in this country—about 11 million—such triage has always been necessary. What distinguishes the president’s approach is that he’s attempted to set the nation on a more rational policy course, providing guidelines to immigration enforcement authorities not to deport millions who were brought into this country as children—and allowing those otherwise law-abiding individuals who have been here a significant amount of time to legally hold a job. The effect is not only to protect a group often referred to as the ”dreamers“ but to use finite resources of enforcement to go after convicted criminals and other undocumented individuals who pose a more serious threat to public safety.”

  7. Bloomberg View: Obama’s Gamble on Immigration Can Still Pay Off

    “[The] courts have never curtailed the executive branch’s authority to manage immigration. In 1930, President Herbert Hoover stopped immigration of all people except those with the means to support themselves, even though he had no explicit legislative authority to do so. Since then, presidents of both parties have used their authority to allow immigration, and block deportation, outside of legislatively granted channels. The Supreme Court should not curtail the president’s authority to manage the country’s borders in the absence of enabling legislation.”

  8. La Opinión: A Decision that Offers Hope

    “It is unfair to have the lives of honest people who have contributed to the country with their labor for years hanging by a thread. Still, even this precarious state would signify an improvement in the lives of undocumented people, who have been turned into the political scapegoat of the country’s frustrations.”

Legal Opinions

Other Key Voices