WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to rehear a bid to revive President Barack Obama’s plan to spare from deportation millions of immigrants in the country illegally, a case in which the justices split 4-4 in June.

U.S. Supreme Court is seen in Washington, U.S., October 3, 2016. REUTERS/Yuri Gripas

In a brief order, the court rejected the Obama administration’s long-shot request, meaning the justices’ June 23 decision is final. That ruling left in place lower court decisions blocking the plan, which Obama announced in 2014 but never went into effect.

The high court remains one justice short following Antonin Scalia’s February death.

The Democratic president’s plan was challenged in court by Republican-governed Texas and 25 other states that argued he overstepped the powers granted to him by the U.S. Constitution by infringing upon congressional authority. Obama acted unilaterally by executive action, bypassing the Republican-led Congress.

“This is the latest setback to the president’s attempt to expand executive power and another victory for those who believe in the Constitution’s separation of powers and the rule of law,” Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said of the Supreme Court’s action on Monday.

Obama’s plan was designed to let roughly 4 million people - those who have lived illegally in the United States at least since 2010, have no criminal record and have children who are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents - get into a program that shields them from deportation and supplies work permits.

The administration in July asked the court to take a second look at the case once it had a full complement of nine justices.

“The inability of the Supreme Court in this situation to reach a decision and put forward a ruling has a negative impact on millions of people in the United States,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters, calling on Senate Republicans to confirm a ninth justice.

The administration’s immigration enforcement efforts, focusing on criminals, recent border-crossers and on people who pose a national security threat, will move forward, unaffected by the Supreme Court’s action, Earnest said.

The Republican-led Senate, in a move with little precedent in U.S. history, has refused to consider Obama’s nominee to replace Scalia, federal appeals court judge Merrick Garland, saying Obama’s successor should make the appointment.

“By continuing their historic, unprecedented obstruction of Chief Judge Merrick Garland’s nomination, Republicans are spreading gridlock and denying justice to the American people,” Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid said.

An estimated 11 million immigrants live in the United States illegally.</s>The US Supreme Court has refused to reconsider President Barack Obama’s plan to lift the threat of deportation from more than 4 million undocumented immigrants, after having previously blocked its implementation.

The eight-member court, which had stymied Mr Obama’s proposed overhaul of America’s immigration system with a tied 4-4 vote in June, said in a brief order on Monday that it would not look again at the case after a ninth Justice is confirmed to break the deadlock.

Mr Obama unveiled his executive action plan, Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA), in November 2014, after the failure of the Republican-led Congress to enact comprehensive immigration reform.

But 26 states sued to prevent the programme being implemented, claiming the President had overstepped his executive authority. A US District Court judge in Texas issued a preliminary injunction in February 2015, which prevented the plan taking effect nationwide.

That decision was upheld by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals before reaching the Supreme Court, where the 4-4 tie left the injunction in place, scuppering the Obama administration’s most ambitious attempt to reform immigration policy.

In July, the Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to assess the case again after a new, ninth Justice is appointed, but to no avail. The court has been evenly split between conservatives and liberals or moderates since the February death of Justice Antonin Scalia.

Mr Obama nominated federal appeals court judge Merrick Garland to take Scalia’s seat, but Republican Senators have refused to hold hearings on any potential replacement until after Mr Obama leaves office.

Today's ruling was welcomed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who told USA Today that it represented “the latest setback to the president’s attempt to expand executive power and another victory for those who believe in the Constitution’s separation of powers and the rule of law.”

The task of enacting comprehensive immigration reform now falls to the next administration. Hillary Clinton has said she will introduce a revised version of Mr Obama’s programme. Donald Trump, by contrast, has said he will step up deportations.</s>WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to rehear a bid to revive President Barack Obama's plan to spare from deportation millions of immigrants in the country illegally, a case in which the justices split 4-4 in June.

In a brief order, the court rejected the Obama administration's long-shot request, meaning the justices' June 23 decision is final. That ruling left in place lower court decisions that had blocked the plan, which Obama announced in 2014 but never went into effect.

The high court remains one justice short following the February death of Antonin Scalia.

The Democratic president's plan was challenged in court by Republican-governed Texas and 25 other states that argued that he overstepped the powers granted to him by the U.S. Constitution by infringing upon the authority of Congress. Obama acted unilaterally by executive action, bypassing the Republican-led Congress.

"This is the latest setback to the president's attempt to expand executive power and another victory for those who believe in the Constitution's separation of powers and the rule of law," Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said of the Supreme Court's action on Monday.

Obama's plan was designed to let roughly 4 million people - those who have lived illegally in the United States at least since 2010, have no criminal record and have children who are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents - get into a program that shields them from deportation and supplies work permits.

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the top Democrat in the Senate, said Monday's action "further highlights how a shorthanded Supreme Court is unable to do its job."

The Republican-backed Senate, in a move with little precedent in U.S. history, has refused to consider Obama's nominee to replace Scalia, federal appeals court judge Merrick Garland, saying Obama's successor should make the appointment.

"By continuing their historic, unprecedented obstruction of Chief Judge Merrick Garland’s nomination, Republicans are spreading gridlock and denying justice to the American people," Reid said.

There are an estimated 11 million immigrants in the United States illegally.

Obama's Justice Department on July 18 asked the court to take a second look at the case once it had a full complement of nine justices.</s>The United States Supreme Court on Monday declined to rehear a bid by President Barack Obama’s administration to revive his plan to spare from deportation millions of immigrants in the country illegally, a case in which the justices split 4-4 in June.

In a brief order, Reuters said the court rejected the administration’s long-shot request, meaning the justices’ June 23 decision is final. That ruling left in place a lower court decision that had blocked the plan, which Obama announced in 2014 but never went into effect. The court remains one justice short following the February death of Antonin Scalia.

Obama’s plan was designed to let roughly 4 million people – those who have lived illegally in the United States at least since 2010, have no criminal record and have children who are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents – get into a program that shields them from deportation and supplies work permits.

In a July 18 filing, Obama’s Justice Department had asked the court to take a second look at the case once it had a full complement of nine justices.

The Republican-backed Senate, in an action with little precedent in U.S. history, has refused to consider Obama’s nominee to replace Scalia, federal appeals court judge Merrick Garland, saying Obama’s successor should make the appointment.</s>In a brief order, the court rejected the administration's long-shot request, meaning the justices' June 23 decision is final. That ruling left in place a lower court decision that had blocked the plan, which Obama announced in 2014 but never went into effect. The court remains one justice short following the February death of Antonin Scalia.

Obama's plan was designed to let roughly 4 million people - those who have lived illegally in the United States at least since 2010, have no criminal record and have children who are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents - get into a program that shields them from deportation and supplies work permits.

In a July 18 filing, Obama's Justice Department had asked the court to take a second look at the case once it had a full complement of nine justices.

The Republican-backed Senate, in an action with little precedent in U.S. history, has refused to consider Obama's nominee to replace Scalia, federal appeals court judge Merrick Garland, saying Obama's successor should make the appointment.

In November 2014, Obama acted unilaterally, by executive action, and bypassed the Republican-led Congress to try to put his plan in place. Obama had aimed during his presidency to overhaul a U.S. immigration system he calls broken and to help resolve the fate of the estimated 11 million people in the country illegally. Obama leaves office on Jan. 20.

Obama's plan was rapidly challenged in court by Republican-governed Texas and 25 other states that argued that he overstepped the powers granted to him by the U.S. Constitution by infringing upon the authority of Congress.

As a result of the high court's 4-4 split, a 2015 lower-court ruling invalidating Obama's plan was left in place. Obama's plan never was implemented because the lower courts had blocked it.

Obama took the action after Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives killed bipartisan immigration legislation that was passed by the Senate in 2013.</s>WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court opened its new term Monday in low-key fashion, still down a justice for the foreseeable future because of the Republican-led Senate’s refusal to act on President Barack Obama’s nominee to replace late Justice Antonin Scalia.

The court, opening its term that runs through June, convened as usual on the first Monday in October, although three of the eight justices were absent to observe the Jewish new year holiday. The court will hear its first oral arguments on Tuesday.

The court announced action on hundreds of appeals that had piled up over the summer.

It declined the Obama administration’s request that it rehear a major immigration case, which the justices split on 4-4 in June, once the court has a full complement of nine justices. The administration had sought to revive the president’s plan, blocked by lower courts, to spare from deportation millions of immigrants in the country illegally.

That tie vote was possible because of the vacancy left by Scalia’s Feb. 13 death.

“Republicans in the Senate need to confirm a ninth justice to the Supreme Court so that the business of the American people can be conducted at the Supreme Court,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters.

The court also declined to take up the contentious issue of pay for college athletes, leaving in place a lower court’s ruling that the governing body for collegiate sports violated antitrust law by limiting athlete compensation.

The justices refused to consider reopening an investigation into possible wrongdoing by Republican Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker’s campaign to withstand a 2012 recall election.

They also declined to hear 87-year-old former Boston mob boss James “Whitey” Bulger’s appeal of his 2013 conviction for committing or ordering the murders of 11 people.

The court refused to hear a Washington Redskins’ appeal challenging a federal decision to cancel the National Football League team’s trademarks after finding the name disparaging to Native Americans. The court last week took up a separate case that could decide the Redskins’ situation.

The most closely watched case set for oral arguments this week comes on Wednesday, when the court will hear an insider trading case that could make it more difficult for prosecutors to bring such charges.

The justices are ideologically split with four liberals and four conservatives after decades of conservative leaning. Senate Republicans have refused to move forward on the Democratic president’s nominee to replace Scalia, appeals court judge Merrick Garland, saying Obama’s successor should make the appointment.

If left to the next president, the appointment would be made by the winner of the Nov. 8 presidential election pitting Republican Donald Trump against Democrat Hillary Clinton. That would mean the vacancy would remain at least until early 2017 and the new justice would miss most of the term’s cases.

The court’s public session in its ornate chamber lasted just a few minutes as Chief Justice John Roberts announced the beginning of the term. Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg were absent to observe the Jewish new year.

The next president could be called upon to fill even more vacancies. Three justices are 78 or older: liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 83; conservative Anthony Kennedy, 80; and liberal Stephen Breyer, 78.

Ginsburg, a justice since 1993 who publicly criticized Trump in July, indicated in a radio interview she is in no rush to step down.

“I will retire when it’s time,” Ginsburg told National Public Radio. “And when is it time? When I can’t do the job full-steam.”</s>The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday announced it has declined to consider a case filed by veteran LGBT activist Kenda Kirby that she believed had the potential to greatly expand non-discrimination protections for LGBT people.

The high court included the case of Kirby v. North Carolina State University among a list of hundreds of cases in which it denied a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari calling on the court to take the case and issue a ruling on its merits.

Kirby, who is not an attorney, earlier this year wrote and filed her own Petition for a Writ of Certiorari for her case.

The case is part of a lawsuit that she filed against NCSU in 2014 that accuses its College of Veterinary Medicine of illegally expelling her from a Ph.D. program in 1994 because of her “perceived gender non-conformity, sex, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, and political affiliation or belief.”

The petition, among other things, alleges that two professors in charge of the program deliberately gave her failing grades in several courses after they learned she attended a national LGBT rights March on Washington in October 1993. It says the improper grades led to her dismissal from the program based on failing grades.

Court records show that the statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit for the alleged discrimination in 1994 was extended to 2014 after the university sent Kirby a bill in 2013 for tuition it claimed she owed the school from her enrollment in the Ph.D. program 20 years earlier.

Her petition for Supreme Court consideration was part of an appeal of a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which upheld a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina dismissing her lawsuit.

The District Court dismissed the case on grounds that the court “lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case.” The court, among other things, cited an 11th Amendment provision in the U.S. Constitution that gives states and state institutions immunity from being sued by private individuals.

The District Court also denied Kirby’s claims that she had been protected under Title IX of a federal civil rights law banning discrimination by educational institutions on grounds that sexual orientation was not covered under that statute.

Kirby argued in her Supreme Court filing that the lower courts’ decisions were based on an overly narrow interpretation of Title IX in direct conflict with a more recent decision by another federal court. She also argued that the lower courts’ decisions were in conflict with the Supreme Court’s decision legalizing same-sex marriage.

If the court had accepted Kirby’s case and eventually handed down a decision in her favor it would have put in place something LGBT rights attorneys have been seeking through other cases during the past several years – a definitive ruling that existing federal civil rights laws ban discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity and expression.

Such a decision would effectively ban discrimination against LGBT people in all 50 states and make it unnecessary for Congress to pass an LGBT civil rights bill, which Congress has declined to do for more than 30 years.

Attorneys familiar with Kirby’s case said a decision by the Supreme Court not to take the case would not harm the other cases pending in lower courts seeking to expand non-discrimination protections for LGBT people.

“I am disappointed that the court was not ready to consider the questions raised by my case since they affect millions of Americans daily,” Kirby told the Washington Blade in an email message. “I am hopeful they will address these issues in the near future in a way that ensures ‘Equal Justice Under Law,’” she said.

Kirby also told the Blade she has filed complaints against NCSU with the U.S. Department of Education and Department of Justice seeking an administrative remedy to her allegations of discrimination. She said representatives of both federal agencies told her they would wait until her court case reached a conclusion before deciding whether to consider her case.</s>WASHINGTON — An evenly divided Supreme Court opens a new term this week with a few dozen mostly low-profile cases. But perhaps the biggest question of the year won’t even be settled by the justices.

Voters next month will effectively decide the court’s ideological bent for the next four years and possibly much longer.

Not since 1968 has the court had a vacancy expected to be filled by the winner of a presidential election.

Then, Senate conservatives filibustered President Lyndon Johnson’s choice to replace retiring Chief Justice Earl Warren, leaving Richard Nixon to nominate a conservative instead. It was the start of a quarter-century of Republican appointments that steadily moved the court to the right.

Now, with the Republican-led Senate’s refusing to consider President Barack Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland, to fill the vacancy created by the death of Antonin Scalia, the court faces the prospect of a shift in the opposite direction.

If Republican nominee Donald Trump wins in November, conservatives are likely to restore their 5-4 majority, based on the names of prospective nominees his campaign has released.

But a Hillary Clinton victory would give the court a majority of Democratic appointees for the first time since 1969. The Senate could decide to approve Garland in the lame-duck session at the end of the year, or leave the choice to Clinton after she takes office in January.

Either way, it would represent the most liberal Supreme Court since the early 1970s.

If that happens, liberals could score some short-term victories early next year on several hot-button issues involving Obama’s executive actions and regulations — on immigration, climate change, contraceptives and rights for transgender students.

This past spring, the justices put off several decisions, given the current 4-4 split among Republican and Democratic appointees. For example, they did not decide whether employers at religious schools and colleges can be required to provide free contraceptives for their female employees under the terms of Obama’s healthcare law. That issue remains unresolved, but a fifth Democratic appointee could form a majority to uphold the so-called contraceptive mandate.

In June, the court split, 4-4, on Obama’s plan to defer deportation and offer work permits to more than 4 million immigrants who have been living in the U.S. illegally. The tie vote kept in place a Texas judge’s order that has halted Obama’s policy.

But the case is still pending, and with a fifth Democratic appointee, the court would probably clear the way for the administration to put its policy into effect.

Similarly, earlier this year — shortly before Scalia’s death in February — the court by a 5-4 vote temporarily blocked Obama’s plan to limit carbon pollution from power plants. That case is working its way through the U.S. appeals court and is certain to return to the Supreme Court for a final review, possibly as early as next spring.

The growing dispute over transgender students using bathrooms that match their gender identity could be taken up early next year. A Virginia school district has filed an appeal challenging a decree issued by Obama’s Education Department.

The court has also agreed to decide a potentially significant church-state dispute, but has put off scheduling arguments, apparently waiting for a ninth justice. At issue is whether a church day-care center in Missouri can claim an equal right to state-subsidized playground materials provided to public schools.

Another major decision could come in the area of voting rights. In recent years, Republican-led states have adopted new election laws that limit early voting and require voters to display specific state-issued photo IDs at the polls. These measures have been challenged by civil rights lawyers and the Justice Department who claim that they are designed to restrict voting by African Americans and Latinos.

The court is set to hear cases from North Carolina and Virginia, where Republican lawmakers are accused of setting election boundaries so that black voters are concentrated in a few districts to strengthen the Republican Party in surrounding areas.

Longer term, liberals would have their first opportunity in generations to hear cases on issues such as partisan gerrymandering, political spending and protecting gays from workplace discrimination.

When conservatives held the majority, liberal and progressive advocacy groups often tried to prevent sensitive issues, like abortion and affirmative action, from reaching the Supreme Court. But with a majority of Democratic-appointed justices on the bench, liberal think tanks and civil rights groups would — for the first time in years — have incentives to cultivate precedent-setting lawsuits and push their issues to the Supreme Court.</s>WASHINGTON — An evenly divided Supreme Court opens a new term this week with a few dozen mostly low-profile cases. But perhaps the biggest question of the year won't even be settled by the justices.

Voters next month will effectively decide the court's ideological bent for the next four years and possibly much longer.

Not since 1968 has the court had a vacancy expected to be filled by the winner of a presidential election.

Then, Senate conservatives filibustered President Lyndon Johnson's choice to replace retiring Chief Justice Earl Warren, leaving Richard Nixon to nominate a conservative instead. It was the start of a quarter-century of Republican appointments that steadily moved the court to the right.

Now, with the Republican-led Senate's refusing to consider President Barack Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland, to fill the vacancy created by the death of Antonin Scalia, the court faces the prospect of a shift in the opposite direction.

If Republican nominee Donald Trump wins in November, conservatives are likely to restore their 5-4 majority, based on the names of prospective nominees his campaign has released.

But a Hillary Clinton victory would give the court a majority of Democratic appointees for the first time since 1969. The Senate could decide to approve Garland in the lame-duck session at the end of the year or leave the choice to Clinton after she takes office in January.

Either way, it would represent the most liberal Supreme Court since the early 1970s.

If that happens, liberals could score some short-term victories early next year on several hot-button issues involving Obama's executive actions and regulations — on immigration, climate change, contraceptives and rights for transgender students.

This past spring, the justices put off several decisions, given the current 4-4 split among Republican and Democratic appointees. For example, they did not decide whether employers at religious schools and colleges can be required to provide free contraceptives for their female employees under the terms of Obama's health care law. That issue remains unresolved, but a fifth Democratic appointee could form a majority to uphold the so-called contraceptive mandate.

In June, the court split, 4-4, on Obama's plan to defer deportation and offer work permits to more than 4 million immigrants who have been living in the U.S. illegally. The tie vote kept in place a Texas judge's order that has halted Obama's policy.

But the case is still pending, and with a fifth Democratic appointee, the court would probably clear the way for the administration to put its policy into effect.

Similarly, earlier this year — shortly before Scalia's death in February — the court by a 5-4 vote temporarily blocked Obama's plan to limit carbon pollution from power plants. That case is working its way through the U.S. appeals court and is certain to return to the Supreme Court for a final review, possibly as early as next spring.

The growing dispute over transgender students using bathrooms that match their gender identity could be taken up early next year. A Virginia school district has filed an appeal challenging a decree issued by Obama's Education Department.

The court has also agreed to decide a potentially significant church-state dispute but has put off scheduling arguments, apparently waiting for a ninth justice. At issue is whether a church day care center in Missouri can claim an equal right to state-subsidized playground materials provided to public schools.

Another major decision could come in the area of voting rights. In recent years, Republican-led states have adopted new election laws that limit early voting and require voters to display specific state-issued photo IDs at the polls. These measures have been challenged by civil rights lawyers and the Justice Department who claim that they are designed to restrict voting by African Americans and Latinos.

The court is set to hear cases from North Carolina and Virginia, where Republican lawmakers are accused of setting election boundaries so that black voters are concentrated in a few districts to strengthen the Republican Party in surrounding areas.

"There is no doubt that a liberal court would be more sensitive to claims of voter suppression like we've seen in North Carolina and Texas and more vigilant against racial gerrymandering," said Steven R. Shapiro, national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Longer term, liberals would have their first opportunity in generations to hear cases on issues such as partisan gerrymandering, political spending and protecting gays from workplace discrimination.

When conservatives held the majority, liberal and progressive advocacy groups often tried to prevent sensitive issues, like abortion and affirmative action, from reaching the Supreme Court. But with a majority of Democratic-appointed justices on the bench, liberal think tanks and civil rights groups would — for the first time in years — have incentives to cultivate precedent-setting lawsuits and push their issues to the Supreme Court.

Many conservatives say that the prospect of a liberal Democrat filling Scalia's seat is driving support for Donald Trump.

"It could mean rolling back at the Second Amendment and cutting back on religious liberty," said Elizabeth Slattery, a legal analyst at the Heritage Foundation. "Citizens United is also on the hit list for the left," she said, referring to the 2010 decision that knocked down limits on independent campaign spending by corporations and unions.

Legal scholars, however, doubt a newly liberal court would move quickly or aggressively, particularly if the new justice is Garland, who is seen as a moderate.

"My guess is the shift would be fairly slow and incremental, rather than sudden and dramatic," said University of Chicago law professor Geoffrey Stone. "The so-called liberals on the court are by nature and experience fairly cautious and moderate."

Conservatives learned that even with a majority, sudden or sweeping change is often difficult to achieve.

When Republicans came to dominate the court in the 1970s and ’80s, conservatives confidently took aim at liberal precedents like the Miranda decision on police warnings, the Roe v. Wade ruling on abortion and the Bakke decision allowing race-based affirmative action in colleges and universities.

Despite repeated legal attacks, all three precedents remain standing.

“No matter who a Democratic president appointed, the center of gravity would be with (justices) Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan,” said Walter Dellinger, a former acting solicitor under President Bill Clinton. “This is not a court that is likely to set about overturning precedents.”
The U.S. Supreme Court declines to rehear President Barack Obama's 2014 plan (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans) to spare from deportation millions of immigrants in the country illegally, a case in which the justices split 4–4 in June. The justices' June 23 decision (United States v. Texas) is final.