Our top story. Immigration protesters were out in force today in front of the US Supreme Court. Justices heard arguments on President Obama's deferred actions on. Can parents of American or DAPA. It would shield as many as 4 million people here illegally from deportation. But 26 states are challenging the president's program saying the president does not have the the policy. Joining me is attorney Dan Eaton. He is our legal analyst here at K bps. What happened inside the courtroom today? Can we tell that they justices were swayed by their arguments. Yes. The first question that the justices agreed to hear was whether these 26 states even had standing. The right to challenge. Frankly from reviewing the transcript which I have, it seems that the justices, the conservatives justices and are not troubled Texas has 28 include -- incur these additional cost for driver's licenses for those who are granted lawful status by the US government. So the solicitor general said she Texas has to change of law. They don't have standing to challenge it. Justice Roberts said if you did that you would sue them. Of course they have standing. If they remove drivers license from everyone except for those who are covered by this program, the Justice Department said them. No I think they probably have standing. They're going to pursue the merits. That is whether President Obama is exceeded his authority by announcing these programs. This is an eight-member US Supreme Court. Which means typos are possible. What happens if there is a tie vote question work If there's a tie vote, before this program, it goes to the lower court opinion striking down the president's action. The president's program and would be off the table until the next administration and would be depended entirely on the next administration. Since this is an executive order is necessarily dependent on the next administration because after all what one president puts in effect for executive order another can withdraw. It must be troubling to the people who are in support of DAPA to hear those comments by justice Roberts. Because he was one of those justices that they thought could possibly swing this. He and Justice Kennedy. Maybe on a 5-3 vote. Or a six-to. And that is not what happened. He thinks this is upside down. Legislating where the president is legislating in the Congress is improving. That is topsy-turvy. Does make sense. See -- Californians may remember that it wasn't an important factor in his decision not to review the merits of proposition eight. Essentially those who defended the law were not the Attorney General. There were not the governor. They do not have standing to defend the law. We're not going to rule on the merits of proposition eight. Of course it wasn't until a few years later. It is not the case here. Because justice Roberts said they had stead. We have this case. We are going to decide this or not. A 4-4 decision does not create precedent. It's as if another present was tried to put this in a place it could be's said to another challenge. Burial with the potential claim on a full strength court. Then I have read that if this does indeed, it is a tying vote. And it goes back to the decision to lower court. But that also old opens a questions up two more losses perhaps by states who are in favor are tran 12. And could make the argument that they are losing tax dollars from people who might be able to work legally pay taxes. That's fascinating, Maureen. You have 26 states led by Texas opposing this executive order, but there were 16 states including California saying we kind of like it. Bringing them out of the shadows would expose various tax revenues. There would have to say -- they would have to pay taxes. The harder that the heart of this program is whether there president is pursuant to his power allowed to or whether he is going beyond that power. So specifically congresses limitation on that. That is what is at the heart of this lawsuit. Do you think that is what the Supreme Court justices are going to be tried to decide that essential question question mark Well some of them are. It is very interesting. What the lower court said is that this exceeds the president's statutory authority as it conferred by Congress. The US Supreme Court went beyond that. To take care that the laws are faithfully executed. Clearly some suggested that the conservative members think he did exceed that authority. Will this be a moot point when president Obama leaves office? Not necessarily. Only have one action is taken one way or another. President Hillary Clinton could decide this is not going to disturb it. Extending to parents of people who had fall under the DACA program which President Obama said he did not have the authority to do. If this is a product Republican president it will probably eliminated on the first day. Ted Cruz would've argued this case had he not been in the United States Senate. I have been speaking with attorney Dan Eaton. Thank you so much. Thank you so much for It is estimated that about 70,000 people here in San Diego would be eligible for the DAPA program if the US Supreme Court upheld it. For discussion on what is that in-state for those people I spoke with attorney Veronica Ruiz and Lilia Valesquez who came to the US years ago. She has four children, to qualify for the tran 1214 program and to our citizens. First of all Lily and Veronica welcome to the program. Good morning it is good to be here. Liliana, what would dop -- what would tran 12 do. It would permit them to work -- however they cannot travel outside the US and also it does not lead to a green card. It does not lead to citizenship? Absolutely not. It is a temporary work permit. It can be revoked. Does not have the force of law. The fear is if a Republican gets elected president, they could revoke it. It would shield people from deportation of? That is exactly what it would do. In essence, it would give them legal status. Temporary legal status. As long as people carry their work permit and it it is DAPA and immigration officials will not bother them. The Supreme Court is also deciding on an expansion of the DACA program. I would imagine that would mean that DACA would actually be covering more people and different types of people is that right? Yes. It actually makes the requirements more flexible. They still need to have -- they need to be physically present in the US since January 1 of 2010. Under the previous DACA it was June 15, 2012. It does expand the timeframe. More people will qualify. Let me ask a few questions. Can you decide tell me -- can you tell us why you decided to leave Mexico. Yes we decided to come from Mexico because in Mexico it is a hard life. We thought coming here for a better future. Helped our daughters to go to college. Have a better future. We are working hard to help their family. My husband is working so hard. Sell flowers. I am cleaning houses. I'm still working because we want to have a better life. We want to have a better future for our kids. Century here illegally, you don't get a green card, you don't get any kind of legal work permit. Is everything under the table? Is everything secretive at? Are you limited in the kinds of work that you can do? Is that right question mark Yes. How concerned have you been about the possibility of deportation question mark Yes. We are thinking about it a lot. I am worried about my husband. He is working for hard to help a family for our future. Our home. Everything. I am really worried about it. If I can interject, the husband is always on the road. He is driving. He is at a higher risk of being detained by immigration officials then Veronica is because she cleans homes. But Alex's at risk every day. So Veronica, how do you think your life would change if you did not have that sort of hanging over you? If DAPA was to be enacted question mark Well it would make my life happy. My life would change. We would still work hard. My husband, working hard, selling flowered. Cleaning houses. We can pay taxes. We can try to do our best work in the United States because we want to feel free. It would be amazing. We can get DAPA Lilia, how to the coal is Veronica's story -- how typical is Veronica's story question mark It is very typical. We have to oldest kids 21 and 19 were are in college. They of change DACA. They have been here legally for three years. We have two parents who are undocumented I think sometimes when people think of undocumented in vigorous in a home they think that every single person in the home has no legal status. Look at this family. It would break. The two kids going to college who are US citizens. But the parents are not. Is DACA is a proven and I've spoken to Veronica and her husband Alex, it would be like the sky would open. And this feeling of freedom. Now we can go camping together. Now we can take the kids to Disneyland. Little things that we take for granted. Even though it is not a green card or citizenship, it is still a lot for them because right now they have nothing. Protesters out -- pro-immigration protesters outside the Supreme Court were chanting along the lines of keep families together. Is that the crux of what this is about? That's exactly it. Basically you have US citizen cares. I can imagine because Veronica's oldest daughter is involved in the community helping out potential DACA beneficiaries. They are saying don't deport my mama. Don't deport my pop-up. They are US citizens. If the parents get deported, what will happen to them? The family would be separated. Even with the two daughters, if they are here legally, they cannot eat leave the country. If Alex and Veronica leave, they were going to lose their family. What you think of the likelihood of DAPA going into effect with President Obama it in office? We are keeping our fingers crossed. Scalia died at the wrong time. Immigration orders -- immigration issues always divided the courts. They don't want the courts to be a foreign policy debate they are there to interpret the Constitution. Cautiously optimistic that it will be approved. All right then. I have been speaking with San Diego County Water Authority three. And Veronica Ruiz. Thank you very much. You are welcome. It was a pleasure. Thank you Maureen.
Conservative Supreme Court justices expressed sharp skepticism about President Barack Obama's immigration efforts Monday, leaving his actions to help millions of people who are in the country illegally in the hands of a seemingly divided court.
As hundreds of pro-immigration demonstrators and a smaller number of opponents filled the sidewalk outside the court, the justices appeared to split along ideological and partisan lines over a case that pits Republican governors and members of Congress against the Democratic administration.
President Barack Obama's administration is asking the justices to allow it to put in place two programs that could shield roughly 4 million people from deportation and make them eligible to work in the United States.
RELATED: Supreme Court Weighs Obama’s Executive Action On Immigration
The programs would apply to parents of children who are citizens or are living in the country legally. Eligibility also would be expanded for the president's 2012 effort that applies to people who were brought here illegally as children. More than 700,000 people have taken advantage of that earlier program, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. The new program for parents, known as Deferred Action for Parents of Americans, and the expanded program for children could reach as many as 4 million people, according to the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute.
The effects of Obama’s immigration policies in San Diego
If the Supreme Court upholds the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans, it’s estimated that 70,000 people in the San Diego region would be eligible for it.
Two of them are Veronica and Alex Ruiz, who illegally came to the U.S. from Mexico 17 years ago to seek “a better future.” They have four children — two U.S. citizens who are 9 and 7 years old and two college students who qualified for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.
“My husband works really hard,” Ruiz told KPBS Midday Edition on Monday. “He sells flowers, I clean houses…. It would be amazing if we can get DAPA.”
“They said it will be like the sky will open,” said Lilia Velasquez, an immigration attorney familiar with the Ruiz family’s case. “This feeling of freedom — ‘now we can go camping together, now we can take the kids to Disneyland.’ Little things that we take for granted, even though this is not a Green Card and it's not citizenship, it's still a lot for them because right now they have nothing.”
Commentary from the Supreme Court justices
Texas is leading 26 states led by Republicans in challenging the programs that Obama announced in 2014 and that have been put on hold by lower courts. Those states say the administration usurped power that belongs to Congress, and Justice Anthony Kennedy indicated some support for that view.
"It's as if ... the president is setting the policy and the Congress is executing it. That's just upside down," Kennedy said.
Chief Justice John Roberts also aggressively questioned Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr., suggesting there are few limits to the president's power under the administration's view of immigration law.
"Under your argument, could the president grant deferred removal to every ... unlawfully present alien in the United States right now?" Roberts asked.
"Definitely not," Verrilli said. But it was not clear Roberts was satisfied with the answer and subsequent explanation.
If the court is split ideologically, the case could end in a 4-4 tie following Justice Antonin Scalia's death in February. That would leave the programs in limbo, almost certainly through the end of Obama's presidency.
Both sides acknowledge that the outcome of the presidential election ultimately could determine the programs' fates, even if the Supreme Court rules for the administration. Republican candidates have pledged to roll back Obama's actions, and Republican candidate Donald Trump has proposed deporting the roughly 11 million people who are living in the U.S. illegally.
“A President Hillary Clinton could decide: ‘This is a good idea and I'm not going to disturb it,’” legal analyst Dan Eaton told Midday Edition. “[She may even extend it] to parents of people who fall under the DACA program, which President Obama has said he didn't have the authority to do. If it is a Republican president, you can bet this is going to be ruled out. It probably will be eliminated the first day.”
Several justices remarked how Congress provides enough money to deport only about 400,000 people annually.
The bulk of immigrants who live in the U.S. illegally "are here whether we want them or not," Justice Sonia Sotomayor said.
The high court is expected to decide by late June whether the efforts can move forward in the waning months of Obama's presidency.
Roberts and his colleagues might have an incentive to avoid a tie vote that would not set a nationwide precedent and also point to the short-handed court's difficulty in getting its work done. If that's the case, the fate of the programs could hang on a two-word phrase the administration used to describe the status of immigrants under the programs— lawful presence. Texas and congressional Republicans who back the state say the phrase is important because it gives the immigrants more rights than federal law allows.
Verrilli told the justices that they could get rid of the phrase and essentially leave the programs unchanged. "If the court thinks it's a problem and wants to put a red pencil through it, it's totally fine," he said.
Roberts sounded interested in that idea, asking lawyer Erin Murphy if the court could, in fact, just "cross out the phrase."
Murphy, representing House Republicans, said it wasn't that simple.
In fact, it was not clear from the arguments whether such an outcome would affect immigrants' ability to work or receive other benefits, including Social Security.
One way for the court to avoid dipping into the complex details of immigration law would be to adopt the administration's argument that Texas has no right to challenge the programs in federal court.
But Roberts did not seem interested in that idea, noting that a ruling on the technical issue of standing would put Texas in a "Catch-22."
Republican governors and members of Congress have argued that Obama doesn't have the power to effectively change immigration law. When he announced the measures 17 months ago, Obama said he was acting under his own authority because Congress had failed to overhaul the immigration system. The Senate had passed legislation on a bipartisan vote, but House Republicans refused to put the matter to a vote.
The administration and immigration advocates say Obama's orders are neither unprecedented nor even unusual. Rather, they say, the programs build on past efforts by Democratic and Republican administrations to use discretion in deciding whom to deport.
The protection from deportation is "discretionary, temporary and revocable relief from the daily fear that they will be separated from their families," Thomas Saenz, arguing on behalf of three mothers of U.S. citizen children, told the court.
