Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=2238741
 
 

Footnotes (327)



 


 



Obama's Ruby Slippers: Enforcement Discretion in the Absence of Immigration Reform


Lauren Gilbert


St. Thomas University School of Law

October 26, 2013

West Virginia Law Review, Vol. 116, No. 1, 2013

Abstract:     
This article explores how Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) emerged both from thwarted efforts at immigration reform and the Supreme Court’s highly anticipated decision in Arizona v. United States. I argue that DACA not only was adopted in response to repeated failed efforts to pass the DREAM Act; it was also promulgated in anticipation of a possible favorable ruling by the Court on S.B. 1070. In Part I, I examine the current separation of powers crisis in immigration policy. I look at both the context in which DACA was adopted and at challenges to DACA in Court and in Congress. I classify the constitutional arguments against DACA into four different categories: 1.) The Youngstown/Curtiss-Wright Dichotomy; 2.) The Non-Delegation Doctrine Resurrection; 3.) The “Take Care” Clause Crisis; and 4.) The Notice and Comment Myth. In Part II, I address the federalism crisis. I argue that DACA was aimed at least in part at weakening the potential impact of S.B. 1070 by carving out a class of individuals who the states could not target and placing them in a quasi-legal status that hopefully would immunize them from state enforcement of the immigration laws. I examine deferred action as one of many twilight statuses where beneficiaries enjoy temporary relief from removal, (often) eligibility for work authorization, and (sometimes) the prospect of lawful residency. I look briefly at subfederal responses to DACA, including several states’ denial of driver’s licenses to DACA recipients. I ultimately conclude that DACA was a justifiable assertion of Executive authority in the face of gridlock in Congress and restrictionism in many states. DACA fell squarely within Executive enforcement powers under an expansive interpretation of congressional and Executive authority that has deep roots in the plenary power doctrine, case law going back over a century, the well-established use of deferred action and similar forms of prosecutorial discretion, and the broad delegation of powers by Congress to the Executive under the Immigration & Nationality Act. In short, like Dorothy’s ruby slippers, the Administration’s power was there all along. In announcing DACA on the eves of the Court’s decision in Arizona v. United States and the 2012 elections, the Obama Administration took a bold political move that not only may have won him the election but may have reenergized his Administration, restored balance in the government, and laid the foundation for comprehensive immigration reform. At the same time the Administration in its final term needs to work within the constraints of the Constitution, focus on reform in Congress, and not establish a precedent for unilateralism that will be subject to abuse in future administrations.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 58

Keywords: immigration, DACA, prosecutorial discretion, separation of powers, federalism, executive powers

Accepted Paper Series





Download This Paper

Date posted: March 26, 2013 ; Last revised: December 22, 2013

Suggested Citation

Gilbert, Lauren, Obama's Ruby Slippers: Enforcement Discretion in the Absence of Immigration Reform (October 26, 2013). West Virginia Law Review, Vol. 116, No. 1, 2013 . Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2238741

Contact Information

Lauren Gilbert (Contact Author)
St. Thomas University School of Law ( email )
16401 NW 37th Ave.
Miami Gardens, FL 33054
United States
305-623-2386 (Phone)
HOME PAGE: http://www.stu.edu/GilbertLauren/tabid/2354/Default.aspx

Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 742
Downloads: 152
Download Rank: 112,854
Footnotes:  327

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo2 in 0.313 seconds