The U.S. Solicitor General cited an article by Professor Anil Kalhan in a brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court, which is poised to hear oral arguments regarding President Obama’s executive actions on immigration.

Representing the Department of Justice, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli is battling Texas and dozens of other states in the United States v. Texas challenge to immigration policies that would defer deportation for more than four million immigrants.  

On April 11, Verilli filed a brief with the Supreme Court contending that Texas and the other states lack standing to wage a legal battle against the initiatives and that – contrary to the challengers’ claims—immigrants whose presence has been deemed unlawful by Congress are subject to removal proceedings.

Distinguishing between the “lawful status” of an immigrant living in the country legally and the “lawful presence” of another who is tolerated for a fixed period of time while still subject to removal, the brief cites an article by Kalhan that the UCLA Law Review Discourse published in 2015.

Kalhan’s article, “Deferred Action, Supervised Enforcement Discretion, and the Rule of Law Basis for Executive Action on Immigration,” explores the legal underpinnings of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents and the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals initiatives.   

The article argues that the two initiatives do not replace legislative reforms that would create a pathway to durable legal status but aim instead to establish enforcement priorities that allow the government to manage scarce resources.

With the Supreme Court scheduled to hear arguments in the matter on April 18, Kalhan also explored the looming legal showdown in an entry to the Notice & Comment blog published by the Yale Journal on Regulation and the ABA Section of Administrative Law and Regulatory Practice.