And also people who had lived here for a long time and happened to be overseas at the time of this order, which came with no warning whatsoever, and suddenly lost the right to return to the United States.”Here is a look at the leading arguments in the case.Judge Gorton also sketched out the broader picture.“Here we have the president acting pursuant to power that Congress gave him, which means, under the Youngstown steel seizure case, he’s acting at the apex of his power,” she said.The most famous part of the decision is a concurrence from Justice Robert H. Jackson, which set out a framework for considering clashes between presidential power and congressional authority. He said the states had been hurt because the order affected their public universities and their tax bases.“The more searching inquiry envisioned by the states would create substantial separation-of-powers problems, by permitting probing of the president’s subjective motive in issuing the order,” the brief said.“The focus of our claim,” he said, “is on people who have been here and have, overnight, lost the right to travel, lost the right to visit their families, lost the right to go perform research, lost the right to go speak at conferences around the world. The Constitution grants the power to shape the nation’s immigration laws to the legislative branch, not the president. WASHINGTON — President Trump’s executive order on immigration has prompted a constitutional showdown that could leave a mark on the law for generations and seems likely to end in a landmark Supreme Court decision.Truman’s actions fell into the third category, Justice Jackson wrote. In this case, Congress—which under the Constitution has complete authority over immigration—passed a statute providing the president the authority …
The president has the most power when he acts with congressional authorization, Justice Jackson said, and an intermediate amount when Congress is silent. Trump administration officials are quick to note that the president campaigned on aggressive enforcement of immigration laws already on the books. In Article I, Section 8, the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the responsibility “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” determining how immigrants can become citizens. The president can restrict immigration In a February 2, 2017, column, Andrew Napolitano posted an article, The President and Immigration, in which made the following incorrect statements: The Constitution expressly gives Congress the power to regulate naturalization, which is the process of becoming an American citizen. But the Constitution itself—from which all federal powers derive—does not delegate to the federal government power over immigration, only over naturalization. In court in Seattle on Friday, Ms. Bennett said the government disagreed with the Texas ruling.Article II of the Constitution confers authority on the president, the Supreme Court has said, to conduct foreign affairs and address immigration.Lawyers for Washington State have said that the executive order violates the First Amendment’s prohibition against government establishment of religion because its provisions on the refugee program favor minority religions.
But other parts of the Constitution may temper or defeat that power. Article II of the Constitution confers authority on the president, the Supreme Court has said, to conduct foreign affairs and address immigration.
The Constitution only mentions immigration once, stating that Congress has no power to limit the migration of slaves until 1808—it is silent about limiting any other migration, although it gives Congress the power to create a uniform rule of naturalization. The powers of the president of the United States include those powers explicitly granted by Article II of the United States Constitution to the president of the United States, powers granted by Acts of Congress, implied powers, and also a great deal of soft power that is attached to the presidency. It says, “Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”The likely answer to both questions: a lot.