Replies

Nah, this act by Obama is totally open to nullification by the states.

If nothing else, each state currently challenging this can simply act on the principle of anti-commandeering. There is nothing - at all - illegal about a state refusing to allow ANY state personnel, facilities, property, etc. be used for the purpose of enforcing a federal law.

Now, the Refugee Act of 1980, and the associated paragraphs in the Immigration and Naturalization Act, are unconstitutional on their face, and as the article says, they are quite liable to being nullified by the states.

Further, this law is not actually just a matter of foreign policy, thus granting the President unlimited purview. It involves Congress’ power to make rules for naturalization. IIRC, the courts have taken a pretty dim view of laws in which Congress has granted the executive branch broad discretion in the *application* of a law (as opposed to *enforcement,* which the courts have generally been more willing to accept a broad definition). In other words, while Congress can often grant the executive broad powers for the purpose of enforcing a *specific* provision of a law, it does not have the power to grant the executive branch broad powers to *interpret* or to *decide the applicability of* a law. If I’m remembering correctly, there have been several cases where such broad applicative powers have been struck down as violations of separation of powers. It is likely that a legal challenge here would do the same.

But, as noted above, these states can nullify. They can declare it null and void BECAUSE the law is unconstitutional, and there is little aside from cutting off their highway funds or trying to invade these states that the FedGov can really do about it. That includes up to direct interdiction. If they just settled for the anti-commandeering route, FedGov would still have a devil of a time trying to enforce this outside of the states that are voluntarily going along with this.