On Demand Audio

SCOTUS Review: US v. Texas

(421 reviews)

Produced on September 12, 2016

$ 89 Immigration, Constitutional, and Public Interest In Stock
Get started now

$299 / year - Access to this Course and 1,500+ Lawline courses


Course Information

Time 1h
Difficulty Advanced

Course Description

The hotly-debated United States v. Texas is one of the most significant cases argued before the Court during the 2016 term, and is the most significant immigration case to be heard by the Court in years. It is likely to have a political impact that extends beyond the letter of the law with the imminent presidential election and current status of legislative immigration reform.

In 2015, with Congress continuing to struggle with passing a comprehensive immigration reform bill, President Obama announced the expansion of the existing Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and establishment of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA). A 2016 study by the Migration Policy Institute places the number of undocumented adults with children eligible for DAPA at 3.6 million undocumented individuals caring for over 4.3 million U.S. citizen/lawful permanent resident children.

Texas and 25 other states filed a challenge to the guidance issued by the Department of Homeland Security related to DAPA and DACA implementation in the Southern District of Texas requesting a preliminary injunction of the executive action. On February 16, 2015, the Southern District of Texas granted the States’ request for a preliminary injunction. Subsequently, the decision was appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which issued a decision on November 9, 2015 upholding the district court’s preliminary injunction.

This case presents substantial questions to be addressed by the Court, including: (1) Whether a state that voluntarily provides a subsidy to all aliens with deferred action has Article III standing and a justiciable cause of action under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to challenge the Secretary of Homeland Security’s guidance seeking to establish a process for considering deferred action for certain aliens because it will lead to more aliens having deferred action; (2) whether the guidance is arbitrary and capricious or otherwise not in accordance with law; (3) whether the guidance was subject to the APA’s notice-and-comment procedures; and (4) whether the guidance violates the Take Care Clause of the Constitution, Article II, section 3.

This course is intended to provide a background for the case and the issuance of the executive orders, discussion regarding the specific questions presented by the Court as well as the larger policy and political issues raised and provide an understanding of the human impact on individuals affected by the DACA and DAPA programs.

Learning Objectives:

  1. Understand the history of President Obama’s executive order expanding of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and establishment of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) and the potential impact of the injunction
  2. Become familiar with the history of the lawsuit, including the underlying District Court injunction and Fifth Circuit appeal
  3. Understand the arguments regarding whether States have standing to challenge the executive order and other issues raised by the case
  4. Become familiar with the Administrative Procedures Act requirements for notice-and-comment procedures

Credit Information

After completing this course, Lawline will report your attendance information to {{ accredMasterState.state.name }}. Please ensure your license number is filled out in your profile to ensure timely reporting. For more information, see our {{ accredMasterState.state.name }} CLE Requirements page . After completing this course, {{ accredMasterState.state.name }} attorneys self-report their attendance and CLE compliance. For more information on how to report your CLE courses, see our {{ accredMasterState.state.name }} CLE Requirements FAQ .


James Kim

McDermott Will & Emery

James W. Kim is a partner with McDermott, Will & Emery. He represents clients in a wide variety of matters related to government contracting, with a particular focus on cases involving the health care industry.

James has successfully litigated bid protest actions before the Government Accountability Office as well as the US Court of Federal Claims. He also has experience representing government contractors in civil and criminal government fraud investigations involving the False Claims Act, the Procurement Integrity Act and the Anti-Kickback Act. In addition, James represents federal government contractors on a broad range of compliance issues, including Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) compliance, Small Business Administration programs and TRICARE contracting. He also advises clients on transactional matters involving acquisition and/or sale of entities that hold government contracts.

James regularly represents health care providers, insurers, and pharmaceutical and medical device companies on regulatory and policy issues related to the health industry, with a particular focus on federal health care programs, including federal grant programs, fraud and abuse, 340B Program participation and privacy issues.

Previously, James served as a law clerk to Judge Christine Odell Cook Miller of the US Court of Federal Claims in Washington, DC, and was employed by The September 11th Fund/United Way of New York City, where he managed the delivery of charitable relief services to families of victims of September 11, 2001.

Joshua Rogaczewski

McDermott Will & Emery

Joshua David Rogaczewski is a partner with McDermott, Will & Emery. He focuses his practice on complex civil litigation, insurance advice, professional-responsibility issues and Virginia state-court litigation. He has significant experience advising clients on directors and officers insurance issues, coverage and reporting obligations, insurance-claims handling and procurement.

Joshua has co-authored several articles for professional legal publications. While in law school, he served as a lead articles editor for The Tax Lawyer. He was also a member of the Appellate Litigation Clinic and a Legal Writing Fellow.


Daniel G.

Very good instructors.

Rebekah D.

Thank you

Ray H.


Jane C.

excellent and presenters really good

Maxwell Z.

Arguments for both sides well presented.

Melissa B.

Excellent speakers

Geoffrey K.

Both presenters were outstanding.

Jorge R.

Excellent presentation

Sharon A.

Useful presentation

Bernice B.

Clear and helpful

Patricia B.

Excellent presenters; interesting and up to date.

Charles C.

Very clear presentation.

Leslie L.

Great presentation!

Load More