Sessions Votes in Support of Resolution Allowing Speaker to File Amicus Brief in U.S. v. TX Case

Statement

U.S. Congressman Pete Sessions (R-TX), chairman of the House Rules Committee, today issued the following statement after voting in favor of a resolution allowing the Speaker of the House to file an amicus brief in the Supreme Court litigation United States v. Texas, which questions the constitutionality of President Obama's Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) policy:

"I have spoken out regularly about the fact that President Obama's policies on amnesty are unwise, unlawful and unconstitutional. Programs like DAPA and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) will only hurt the American economy and our way of life, and are inherently unfair to the thousands who follow the law and wait their turn to come to America legally.

"But this case is not just about the president's unlawful immigration policies. It's about the fundamental powers given to the legislative branch under Article I of the United States Constitution, which details in section 8 that Congress, not the president, has the authority to "establish a uniform rule of naturalization.' Yet this president has taken it upon himself to simply ignore certain statutes, selectively enforce others or bypass the legislative process entirely to create law by executive fiat.

"Because of this precise constitutional question pending before the Supreme Court, we believe the House is uniquely positioned to consider this resolution and respond in a way that reaffirms our commitment to protecting our Article I legislative powers on behalf of the American people and on behalf of representative self-government. Today's debate on the House Floor offered compelling examples of how this president has utterly failed time and time again to fulfill his duty under Article II, section 3 of the Constitution to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.' If he won't, we must."

More than 25 states or state officials have filed suits challenging the administration's expansion of DACA and the creation of a DACA-like program for aliens who are parents of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents (DAPA). On February 16, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (i) held that the states have standing to sue, (ii) held that DAPA and DACA expansions are judicially reviewable and (iii) entered a preliminary injunction prohibiting further implementation of these programs on the ground that the states are likely to prevail in their argument that the programs run afoul of the procedural requirements of the APA. Subsequently, on November 9, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's order granting a preliminary injunction. The Obama administration has sought review from the Supreme Court, which granted its petition for certiorari on January 19, 2016. In so doing, the Court indicated that it would also consider the plaintiffs' claims under the Take Care Clause.

Source