Live
Audio Only
Immigrants' rights were dealt a blow Thursday after the Supreme Court failed to decide whether President Barack Obama's plan to expand protection to millions of undocumented immigrants facing deportation is constitutional, leaving intact a lower-court ruling blocking the plan.
RELATED:
Undocumented Valedictorian Slams US Immigration Policy
"While there may be some hope for a future appeal, it means that today 5 million parents' and their children's hopes are dashed and that many more millions remain excluded from immigration relief," wrote immigrant rights advocate Suzanne Foster to teleSUR.
The court, with four conservative justices and four liberals, appeared divided along ideological lines during oral arguments on April 18 in a case brought by 26 states led by Texas that sued to block Obama's 2014 executive action on immigration that bypassed Congress, known as Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DAPA/DACA).
Another case making its way to the Supreme Court could challenge the 4-4 decision, while the case led by Texas will now go to a Texas district court. The 2012 version of DACA is still in effect, postponing the deportation of immigrants that came to the United States as children.
Several activists demonstrated in front of the court during hearings in April, when several undocumented migrants and their families told their stories to the U.S. Supreme Court — a first in U.S. history.
The states argued that Obama overstepped the powers granted to him by the U.S. Constitution by infringing upon the authority of Congress.
WATCH: US Supreme Court to Rule on Obama’s Immigration Action
“Under President Obama we have witnessed the creation of a parallel mass incarceration system strictly for immigrants. The relief offered by expanding deferred action is desperately needed and entirely constitutional,” said Tania Unzueta, Legal and Policy Director for Mijente in a press release. “With it now blocked, many more of us are still in the crosshairs of the deportation machine that it is incumbent on President Obama to begin to dismantle.”
For many advocates, the program to grant work permits and defer deportation to around four million people — those who have lived undocumented in the United States since at least 2010, have no criminal record and have children who are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents — is one of the last viable solutions for undocumented immigrants.
Still, state and local governments have found other ways to advance immigrant-friendly policy even beyond the narrow restrictions imposed by DAPA, which advocacy groups will continue to push.
"Despite this temporary setback, immigrant families are not deterred," said Christian Ramirez, human rights director at Alliance San Diego, in a statement sent to teleSUR. "It is evident that the unwillingness of Congress to do its job has caused gridlock in the judicial branch, we will remember this on election day.”
ANALYSIS:
Immigration Reform in the Age of Obama
"If the Supreme Court decision does not land on the side of immigrants, then they go back to the shadows. Then deportations continue. Then there’s no way for them to become American citizens," said Polo Morales, political director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of L.A. in an interview with Fusion on Monday.
Republican U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan said the ruling "makes the president’s executive action on immigration null and void." Ryan described the decision as a "major victory in our fight to restore the separation of powers."
Obama's plan was blocked by lower courts and never went into effect.
"For more than two decades now, our immigration system ... has been broken, and the fact that the Supreme Court was not able to issue a decision today doesn't just set the system back even further, it takes us further from the country that we aspire to be," he said in a press conference.
Thursday marked a big day for the Supreme Court, which ruled on two other high-profile decisions.
The court upheld the practice of considering race in college admissions, rejecting a white woman's challenge to a University of Texas affirmative action program designed to boost the enrollment of minority students.
It also tied on a case on tribal sovereignty, allowing tribal courts to rule on nonmembers in civil cases on native land.
Newsletter
