This is the Cato Daily Podcast for Friday, January 22nd, 2016.

I'm Caleb Brown.

Some of President Obama's executive moves on immigration

have earned both criticism and praise as policy, but the constitutional

justification he's used to undertake these actions without congressional

permission are suspect. Now that issue will go before the US Supreme Court.

Cato's Alex Narasta and Ilia Shapiro

discussed the policy and constitutional claims.

In 2014, President Obama decided to take some action

on behalf of immigrants to the United States, what did he do and what is the legal

issue surrounding it?

So after 22 times saying that he could not lawfully do this, he decided after the 2014

congressional midterm elections that now he was a lame duck and he's going to do it

anyway. And what this is is to give temporary legal status of some kind to the parents of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent

residents.

It affects about 4 million people across the country.

And with this temporary status or deferral of action on them, they get a card that authorizes them to seek employment, certain other kinds of federal benefits.

And there was a second part to what he announced, and that is in terms of enforcement priority that for example the authorities

will go after big drug gangs and violent criminals rather than maids and gardeners and people who are doing nothing other than being in the country illegally.

Now the 26 states who are challenging that, they immediately filed suit, are challenging the first part of that the letting people

stay giving them temporary authorization to work and all these other sorts of

benefits they aren't challenging the enforcement priority.

...