The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments and render a decision on the DAPA and extended DACA programs announced by President Obama on November 20, 2014. The case of US v. Texas.

The programs were never implemented due to an injunction issued by a Texas district court and upheld by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The programs provided specific guidance for DHS to provide employment authorization and protection from deportation to millions of undocumented immigrants who have been living in the US for an extended period of time, have no criminal records, and meet certain criteria.

Texas obtained an injunction preventing the program from being implemented arguing that the program would violate their state sovereignty and cause the state significant financial harm.

The DOJ has submitted a nearly 300 page brief in support of the legality of the programs. The DOJ cites to the broad discretion provided to the executive branch regarding matters of immigration and the history of the executive branch exercising its discretion in this manner.

Many Amici briefs were submitted by third parties in this matter. 16 states and the District of Columbia submitted a brief in support of the programs refuting Texas' claims that the programs will injure the states. They argue the guidance will actually benefit the states.

Washington state estimates tax revenue to grow by $57 million in 5 years if the program is implemented. The brief further notes that Texas' tax revenues would grow an estimated $338 million in five years if the programs were implanted. The brief also discusses the various ways the programs will lower the financial burden on the states caused by deportation.

188 cities and counties from 35 states representing 55 million people, joined by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, a nonpartisan group, and the National League of Cities submitted a brief in support of the programs.

42 California businesses, civic, and educational leaders and institutions filed a brief in support of the programs. This brief notes the increase in California tax revenue as well as the creation of jobs and the raising of wages for state residents.

A group of 60 business leaders including Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook submitted a similar brief in support of the programs.

A brief was submitted by faith-based organizations in support of the programs as well. Their brief argues that they are an interested party in this matter because both Hebrew and Christian bibles teach acceptance of foreigners. They cite Leviticus 19:33, “when a stranger resides with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were aliens in the land of Egypt.”

A very compelling brief was submitted by recipients of DACA who argue that they are proof the good that results from the proposed policies.

Another interesting brief was submitted but a group of law enforcement agencies. Even more interesting is that a brief was submitted by former INS and DHS officials in support of the programs.

Briefs were also submitted by:

Economists

186 Members of the US House of Representatives and 39 Members of the Senate

18 Bipartisan former members of Congress

Administrative Law Scholars (who focused on the legal standing of the law suit and the policy being exempt from notice-and-comment- requirements of the APA).

Professor Walter Dellinger, who submitted a brief on prop 9) submitted a brief about lack of standing in this matter.

For more details about this case check out http://www.fightforfamilies.org.

There you can also find copies of all the documents filed in this case.