Supreme Court argument has taken place in United States v. Texas, a high-stakes, hotly contested case on the Administration’s executive programs that deferred possible deportation of millions of undocumented individuals. The Court’s expected June decision is likely to have far-reaching implications for employers.

In 2012, the Obama Administration introduced through executive action Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), a program which deferred deportation of certain individuals who arrived to the United States unlawfully as minors. DACA allowed these individuals access to employment authorization. In late-2014, the Administration, again through executive action, expanded DACA, in part, by increasing the available periods of employment authorization for DACA beneficiaries from two years to three years, and introduced Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA). DAPA is a program which deferred deportation of and created a basis for employment authorization for parents who, as of November 20, 2014, had a child who was a U.S. citizen or green card holder.

In February 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas concluded the 2014 DACA expansion and DAPA creation were unconstitutional and enjoined the 2014 executive action. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the lower court’s injunction later that year. The Administration appealed that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The case raises the threshold issue as to whether states have the right to bring such an action and carries with it broad implications for the limits on and use of executive power. The case is important for employers because hundreds of thousands of individuals have obtained employment authorization through DACA’s 2012 guidelines and more than 100,000 more received three-year employment authorization approvals through the 2014 expansion before the district court’s injunction.  It was expected that many individuals would continue to apply for three-year employment authorization under the DACA expansion and DAPA creation.  Since February 2015 and until the Supreme Court renders a decision, only individuals qualifying under the original 2012 DACA guidelines may obtain employment authorization, limited to two-year increments.  If the Supreme Court agrees with the Fifth Circuit, then the DACA expansion and DAPA program will be nullified.  Whether the pre-2014 DACA program and guidelines would survive a Supreme Court decision affirming the Fifth Circuit’s ruling is unclear.

Contributing to the interest in and speculation about this case is the vacancy on the Supreme Court created by Justice Antonin Scalia’s recent death. Should the Supreme Court’s deliberations end in a 4-4 tie, the lower court’s ruling  would remain intact and undisturbed, thus foreclosing the ability of individuals who would otherwise be qualified for employment authorization under DACA expansion and DAPA to receive employment authorization as the 2014 executive action intended.  However, because an affirmance by an equally divided 4-4 Court would be non-precedential, the issues could be raised again in another case, after a ninth justice was seated on the Court.

There will be great interest in the outcome of this case as the end of the current term approaches, and Jackson Lewis will monitor developments and ramifications for employers.

Print:
EmailTweetLikeLinkedIn
Photo of Forrest G. Read IV Forrest G. Read IV

Forrest Read is a Principal in the Raleigh, North Carolina, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. He has extensive experience in both business immigration law and employment law and has particular focus in legal issues in graduate medical education (GME).

Mr. Read’s immigration practice…

Forrest Read is a Principal in the Raleigh, North Carolina, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. He has extensive experience in both business immigration law and employment law and has particular focus in legal issues in graduate medical education (GME).

Mr. Read’s immigration practice focuses on assisting employers in obtaining employment-based nonimmigrant visas (e.g., H-1B, L, O, TN) for foreign national employees and work-related immigrant (green card) visas, including PERM Labor Certifications, and advising employers on compliance with U.S. immigration laws and regulations. He has broad experience in advising large, mid-size and small employers on their various immigration needs and developing strategies to help them navigate through complex immigration issues. He also has particular experience in counseling employers in the health care industry and addressing immigration-related issues that arise for their broad range of health care professional employees (including advising on and obtaining employment authorization for medical residents and fellows and obtaining J-1 visa waivers for foreign national physicians completing their medical training in the United States). His immigration practice also includes defending employers in connection with Department of Labor H-1B and H-2B investigations.

Mr. Read’s employment law experience includes representing management, particularly academic medical centers in the GME context, in a wide array of workplace disputes and litigation before federal and state courts and administrative agencies, including matters related to discrimination, retaliation, harassment, disability, family and medical leave, various wage and hour issues, contracts, and intentional torts. He advises academic medical centers on the interplay between applicable academic law and employment law and the ramifications of what are divergent legal requirements and standards. Mr. Read also provides counsel with respect to the legal impact of competency standards for residents and trainees in GME, including situations involving discipline, remediation, and dismissal. He provides advice and guidance in the peer review process, including provision of verification and assessment of training in response to third party inquiries.

As a member of the Firm’s Corporate Diversity Counseling group, Mr. Read also has experience in providing assessments and making recommendations to corporate and institutional clients with respect to diversity and inclusion policies and initiatives, conducting related internal investigations, and shaping, developing and enforcing effective policies and initiatives to ensure consistency with client values and in furtherance of business goals and objectives.