Supporting the President’s Executive Orders on Immigration (H. Res. 646)

What is H. Res. 646?

(Updated April 18, 2021)

This resolution would express that the House of Representatives supports the position of the Obama administration in the Supreme Court case United States v. Texas. The Court heard oral arguments in the case on April 18, 2016, which deals with whether the administration’s Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) program is constitutional.

The authors of this legislation believe that it is constitutionally authorized by existing laws and administrative actions taken by previous administrations. Opponents feel that the administration violates the Take Care Clause of the Constitution and should not be supported.

As a simple resolution, this legislation would neither advance to the Senate nor have the force of law if it were to be passed.

Argument in favor

President Obama didn’t overstep his authority by issuing an executive order to implement the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans program. The House is entitled to express and rally support for comprehensive immigration reform.

Argument opposed

The President’s executive orders on immigration violated both his authority under the Constitution and requirements for implementing regulations. Congress needs to fight back against executive overreach when it occurs, not encourage it.

Impact

Congressional supporters of DAPA; supporters and critics of DAPA; the Obama administration; and the Supreme Court.

Cost of H. Res. 646

A CBO cost estimate is unavailable.

Additional Info

In-Depth: Sponsoring Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) issued an optimistic statement about the fate of DAPA after the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in U.S. v. Texas:

“I left feeling hopeful that the Court will find President Obama’s executive immigration actions legal and a common-sense exercise of executive discretion. They are strongly rooted in precedent and statutory constitutional authority.”

The House of Representatives filed a collective amicus curiae brief with the Court opposing the Obama administration’s position on this case, a move approved in a 234-186 vote.

A total of 15 House Democrats have signed on to support this resolution as cosponsors.

Of Note: Following the decision of a U.S. District Court to issue an injunction blocking DAPA’s implementation, and the Obama administration unsuccessfully appealed to lift the injunction through the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The White House believes that it has the prosecutorial discretion to stop deportations and offer legal resident status to unauthorized immigrants.

The Migration Policy Institute estimates that as many as 5.2 million unauthorized immigrants may be eligible for either DAPA or DACA, which is a similar program focused on unauthorized immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children.

Media:

• Sponsoring Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) Statement
• Politico