Members of the U.S. House of Representatives made history Thursday as the body voted to weigh in on a lawsuit being brought before the Supreme Court challenging President Barack Obama’s executive orders issued regarding amnesty programs for immigrants.
In a vote that fell mostly along party lines, the House of Representatives voted 234-186 to allow House Speaker Paul Ryan to authorize the filing of an amicus curiae brief in the court case U.S. vs Texas.
“Amicus curiae” translates from Latin as “friend of the court.” Amicus briefs are legal documents filed in appellate court cases by people who are not directly involved in a suit as litigants but who have a demonstrated strong interest in the subject before the court. The briefs serve to provide the court with additional information or arguments the interested parties feel the court might wish to consider when rendering a decision.
Several members of both the U.S. House and Senate have filed amicus briefs on their own, but Thursday’s vote will see a brief filed on behalf of the entire House of Representatives condemning what it feels is an over-reach of power by the President.
According to U.S. Rep. Phil Roe, M.D., the vote on Thursday made history with the House as a whole weighing in on a matter before the Supreme Court.
“It’s the first time in the history of the country this has happened,” Roe said. “This is a huge Constitutional matter regarding the separation of powers.”
Members of Congress have criticized President Obama’s use of executive orders to implement programs and rulings without the approval of Congress.
“He is legislating from the Oval Office and totally bypassing Congress,” Roe said. “This is about the Constitution and the separation of powers. If this is not upheld, he or any President after him, will be able to legislate whatever they want from the Oval Office.”
When the matter came to a vote on the House floor on Thursday, Roe said he whole-heartedly supported the proposal.
“I’m proud to support this amicus brief because I took an oath to support and defend our nation’s most sacred document, and it’s an oath I take very seriously,” he said. “This unprecedented step is necessary because President Obama has repeatedly ignored the Constitution and crossed the line to ignore the limits of his office.”
“The President of the United States has a duty to uphold and faithfully execute the law, not to write new laws from the Oval Office, and we have to stop this dangerous overreach before it’s too late,” he added.
In the case of U.S. vs Texas, the Supreme Court will consider the legality of amnesty programs the President implemented through his often-criticized use of executive orders.
President Obama unveiled the amnesty programs more than a year ago, but federal courts blocked the programs from being implemented in response to a legal challenged brought by Texas and 25 other states, including Tennessee. Since the challenge, nearly 4.3 million immigrants who would have been eligible for the programs have been trapped in legal limbo.
The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the case by early summer.
Roe said he anticipates the court will split in a 4-4 ruling along the conservative and liberal lines.
If the court overturns the challenge, the programs will get the greenlight and will go into effect before President Obama leaves office.