November 16, 2015 8:49AM 

# More on the Immigration Ruling as We Head to the Supreme Court 

By [Ilya Shapiro](https://www.cato.org/people/ilya-shapiro) 

---

<a class="js-popover-trigger cursor-pointer popover-trigger" data-bs-placement="bottom" data-bs-trigger="click" id="popover-trigger"> 

SHARE 

</a> 

Nearly a week has passed since the Fifth Circuit [affirmed the injunction](https://www.cato.org/blog/good-policy-bad-law-obama-correctly-rejected-again-immigration-reform) against President Obama’s executive action on immigration, known as DAPA (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans). After digesting the 70-page [majority opinion](https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/wp-content/uploads/texas_v_us_5th_circuit_ruling.pdf) and 54-page dissent (plus the 11-page DAPA memo that’s an appendix), I can say that there aren’t any real surprises but we should keep in mind the following points as this case moves forward to the Supreme Court, which I elaborate on [for*Forbes*](http://www.forbes.com/sites/ilyashapiro/2015/11/15/gaming-out-the-immigration-case-as-it-heads-to-the-supreme-court/):

1. Standing is very important.
2. “Justiciability” is similarly crucial.
3. The appellate court didn’t simply affirm the district court’s finding that the executive action violated the Administrative Procedure Act, but also added a further justification, that DAPA exceeds the executive’s statutory authority.

For more detailed examinations of the Fifth Circuit ruling, see Josh Blackman’s diligent series of posts on [standing](http://joshblackman.com/blog/2015/11/10/texas-v-u-s-part-i-standing/), [justiciability](http://joshblackman.com/blog/2015/11/10/texas-v-u-s-part-ii-reviewability-of-dapa/), the [procedural claim](http://joshblackman.com/blog/2015/11/10/texas-v-u-s-part-iii-must-dapa-be-subject-to-notice-and-comment/), the [substantive claim](http://joshblackman.com/blog/2015/11/10/texas-v-u-s-part-iv-substantive-apa-claim/), the dissenting opinion [generally](http://joshblackman.com/blog/2015/11/14/texas-v-u-s-part-v-the-dissent/) and on [standing](http://joshblackman.com/blog/2015/11/14/texas-v-u-s-part-vi-the-dissent-on-standing/) and [justiciability](http://joshblackman.com/blog/2015/11/15/texas-v-u-s-part-vii-the-dissent-on-justiciability/).

So where do we go from here? Read my *[Forbes](https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/gaming-out-immigration-case-it-heads-supreme-court) piece.*

##### Related Tags 

[Government and Politics](https://www.cato.org/government-politics), [Constitutional Law](https://www.cato.org/constitutional-law), [Trade Policy](https://www.cato.org/trade-policy), [Herbert A. Stiefel Center for Trade Policy Studies](https://www.cato.org/herbert-stiefel-center-trade-policy-studies), [Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies](https://www.cato.org/robert-levy-center-constitutional-studies) 

[![Creative Commons License](/build/cato_2020/images/creative-commons.svg)](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) 
This work is licensed under a [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/).