You likely have heard about the high-stakes case U.S. vs Texas, which pits the federal government against twenty-six states over a policy that would allow an estimated four million undocumented individuals to stay here temporarily. Texas says it has the right to sue the federal government and try to stop the policy because its own law requires issuing driver’s licenses to some of those people, which might get expensive. The Obama administration counters that Texas can’t challenge a federal policy based on “incidental” costs. The Supreme Court is expected to decide the question by the end of June.
Chances are, no matter how mesmerizing this particular battle over immigration policy, you did not listen to the parties’ arguments before the Supreme Court. It’s probably best to keep it that way. Even for attorneys used to the slow grind of legal argument, this one was tough.
I have written previously about how confounding immigration law can be. And it’s no secret that lawyers have a knack for making simple concepts outrageously complex. Who could forget Bill Clinton’s slicing and dicing the word "is" during the scandal over his relationship with Monica Lewinsky? In the U.S. v. Texas argument, the Justices and attorneys could barely have a conversation without getting tangled in mind-bending terminology.
To read the rest: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/laura-murraytjan/us-v-texas-how-the-suprem_b_9979566.html