Hampton University

100 E Queen St, Hampton, VA 23668

March 6, 2016
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Anthony M.
Kennedy, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Stephen G.
Breyer, Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Justice Elena Kagan
Supreme Court Justices of the United States
Supreme Court of the United States
1 First St NE,
Washington, DC 20543
Dear United States Federal Supreme Court:
The INA (Immigration and Nationality Act) is the current legislation established for
immigration law (McFayden). On November 20, 2014, President Obama announced an
executive order for an immigration reform (Executive). Essentially, those who have
resided in the US for longer than five years, with children who are legal residents or
American citizens, registered, able to pass a background check, and willing to pay taxes,
will be eligible to stay in the United States temporarily without fear of deportation
(Executive). However, the 5th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals blocked Obamas
executive order on February 16, 2015 (Rudalevige). Soon after, Obama appealed to the
Supreme Court, thereby Texas v. United States was born (Rudalevige). This called the
Supreme Court to consider if the Department of Homeland Securitys (DHS) guidance for
initiating the reform is legal, and whether it violates the Take Care Clause found in
Article 2 section 3 of the US Constitution (Rudalevige). The Take Care Clause states,
the president shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed (The Heritage). From
the Supreme Courts perspective, Obamas executive order for immigration reform
through the DHS fulfills the important underlying concept of Checks & Balances and a
crucial role of the Executive Branchs authority.
Texas is arguing that the DHS illegally imposed its immigration guidelines as regulations,
and that constitutionally speaking, issues dealing with immigration are left to the
legislative branch. Their rationale is that the Constitution grants no enumerated powers to
the President over immigration, and that the Supreme Court, as well as the Court of
appeals has left such issues to be handled by the legislative branch (Stein). An exemplary
case would be Harisiades v. Shaughnessy (1952), which conceptualized Congress as the
sole authority for matters dealing with immigration-related legislature (Stein). However,
the Constitution does not explicitly restrict the President from handling such issues when
the legislative branch fails to do so sufficiently. To suggest otherwise, undermines the
idea of checks and balances, and the Constitutions take care clause.
Arguments that the take care clause is violated by Obamas executive order are
formulated under the premise that the DHSs impositions does not faithfully execute
or follow the guidelines outlined by the INAs legislation (Rudalevige). Concluding that

instead of faithfully executing the law by following current legislative guidelines, the
President is essentially changing the law (Understanding the).
This is because current legislation has already emplaced the DACA, and the executive
order calls for an expansion on the DACA, as well as the establishing of a DAPA, plans
of action to defer deportation for childhood arrivals, and the Parents of legally permanent
residents (Executive). However, like the original DACA initiative, both expanded
DACA and DAPA, derive from the executive branchs authority to exercise discretion in
the prosecution and enforcement of immigration cases (Understanding the). In that
respect, the executive order has not necessarily changed a law, but exercised its authority
of discretion and enforcement in respect to the legislative branchs means of execution.
This is because the Executive branch was the original initiator of the DACA and DAPA
guidelines, therefore by abiding by and taking up the DACA, the government admits that
the executive branch has the authority of controlling the execution of its creation, and
although these guidelines that it created are not legislation, the guidelines creation derive
from its authority to exercise discretion. Therefore, it is not legislation, but it is an
ameliorated way of executing legislation that is already in place, so that it is more
successful in fulfilling its intent.
Moreover, even if the executive order did change the law, the take care clause would
still be fulfilled through Obamas executive order. This is because, although the
legislative branch currently addresses the issue of immigration through the Immigration
and Nationality Act, there are roughly 11 million undocumented immigrants in the
United States, and political leaders of both parties agree the current system is broken and
needs fixing. Yet Obama's action has outraged Republicans in Congress, who say the
president doesn't have the authority to delay deportations for such a large class of people
without legislation (Ehrenfreund).
Thereby, it is established; the legislative branch acknowledges that the current system is
broken. If the current system is broken, its ability to sufficiently or faithfully resolve is
essentially non-existent. That factor grants the President authority to delay deportations
for such a large class of people without legislation, because if both parties agree the
current system is broken and needs fixing, then for the sake of upholding the concept of
checks and balances, the President must be allowed to step in and issue an executive
order to fulfill the take care clause. This is because the take care clause mandates the
President take care that the laws be faithfully executed (Ehrenfruend).
Therefore, even if the INA is legally warranted to execute its laws without subjection to
the DHSs guidelines, the true intent of executing those laws goes unfulfilled. Thereby
rendering those laws unfaithfully executed. This legalizes the DHSs imposed
regulations, because, in issuing an immigration reform, the President can takes care
that the laws thereof are faithfully executed. This is because although the DACA and
DAPA guidelines do not operate directly under the INA, as earlier stated: they help
achieve the goal of the INA, which is to create an effective immigration and
naturalization policy. Put another way: it indirectly helps the President ensure or take

care that the law is faithfully executed by fulfilling the INAs actual intent. In that
respect, the DHS imposition is only done for the sake of upholding the Constitution, in
lieu of upholding a broken system.
Therefore, Obamas executive order for immigration reform is constitutionally sound
because in an area where a severe problem is insufficiently addressed by the legislative
branch, it is the executive branchs duty to check it. Moreover, it is also the Supreme
Courts duty as the judicial branch to rule in favor of the Presidents immigration reform
through legalizing the impositions of the DHS over the INAs legislative authority. In
doing so, the Supreme Court upholds balance, in that it gives the executive branch the
right to reform laws. This seems like a violation of the Constitution via an overreach of
the executive branch, but the replacement is Constitutional, in that through allowing the
DHS to impose its regulations upon the INA, the President is able to take care that the
INA faithfully executes laws dealing with immigration, through enforcing ameliorative
guidelines so that the area of politics which the law intends to address is successfully
fulfilled via the executive branchs means of execution.
The Ruling of this case can either provide leeway for Constitutional technicalities to be
prioritized over its intention of upholding Checks and Balances, or it will strengthen
the Constitution and the Federal Governments ability to check & balance itself. In
respect to the former, through not allowing the President's executive reform to check the
legislative branch, the president is unable to fulfill the "takes care clause." Therefore
attaining the latter through upholding Obamas executive order for immigration reform is
more Federally warranted in accordance with the Constitution. This is because the
weightier part of the Constitution is to uphold checks and balances. When the legislative
branchs guidelines for executing a policy is agreed to be insufficient by the legislative
body itself, and if the issue is continuously neglected by that legislative body, than the
executive body should have authority to execute ameliorative guidelines.
With much gratitude and concern,

Patrick Clowney

Works Cited
"Executive Actions on Immigration." USCIS. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Feb. 2016.
"The Heritage Guide to The Constitution." Guide to the Constitution. N.p., n.d. Web. 29
Feb. 2016.
Ehrenfreund, Max. "Your Complete Guide to Obamas Immigration Executive Action."
Washington Post. The Washington Post, 20 Nov. 2014. Web. 29 Feb. 2016.
Moffett, Dan, and Jennifer McFadyen. "What Is the Immigration and Nationality Act?"
About.com News & Issues. N.p., n.d. Web. 29 Apr. 2016.
Rudalevige, Andrew. "The Supreme Court Asked Four Questions about Obamas
Immigration Initiative. The Last One Is Key." Washington Post. The Washington Post,
n.d. Web. 29 Apr. 2016.
Stein, Dan. "Symposium: Why United States v. Texas Is the Most Important Case the
Court Will Decide This Year." SCOTUSblog RSS. N.p., 09 Feb. 2016. Web. 29 Feb.
2016.
Understanding the Legal Challenges to Executive Action."Understanding the Legal
Challenges to Executive Action. American Immigration Council, 21 Jan. 2016. Web. 04
Mar. 2016.