The Supreme Court is announcing that it will indeed take up the issue of the constitutionality of Obama’s despotic executive orders on immigration that allowed children brought into the United States illegally to received “deferred action” on their deportation.

Watch below:

More from ABC News:

The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to an election-year review of President Barack Obama’s executive action to allow up to 5 million immigrants living in the U.S. illegally to “come out of the shadows” and work legally in the United States.

The justices said they will consider undoing lower court orders that blocked the plan from taking effect in the midst of a presidential campaign already roiled by the issue.

The case will be argued in April and decided by late June, about a month before both parties’ gather for their nominating conventions.

The immigrants who would benefit from the administration’s plan are mainly the parents of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents.

Texas is leading 26 mainly Republican-dominated states in challenging the Democratic administration’s immigration plan.

So far, the federal courts have sided with the states to keep the administration from issuing work permits and allowing the immigrants to begin receiving some federal benefits.

If the justices eventually side with the administration, that would leave roughly seven months in Obama’s presidency to implement his plans. “We are confident that the policies will be upheld as lawful,” White House spokeswoman Brandi Hoffine said after the court’s action Tuesday.

At issue is the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans program, which Obama said in late 2014 would allow people who have been in the United States more than five years and who have children who are in the country legally to “come out of the shadows and get right with the law.”

Texas quickly led a legal challenge to the program and has won every round in court so far. Most recently, in November, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the states, prompting the appeal to the Supreme Court.

It’s almost certainly unconstitutional, but that doesn’t mean much to half of the justices on the Supreme Court who rule based on their feelings or skin color or reproductive genitalia instead of the Constitution.


Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.


NOTE: If the comments don't load properly or they are difficult to read because they are on the blue background, please use the button below to RELOAD DISQUS.

 
 
Follow Us!
Get all of our posts delivered directly to your inbox every day!

Join other followers

Powered By WPFruits.com