The Constitution only mentions immigration once, stating that Congress has no power to limit the migration of slaves until 1808—it is silent about limiting any other migration, although it gives Congress the power to create a uniform rule of naturalization. It says, “Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”The likely answer to both questions: a lot. But the Constitution itself—from which all federal powers derive—does not delegate to the federal government power over immigration, only over naturalization.
He said the states had been hurt because the order affected their public universities and their tax bases.“The more searching inquiry envisioned by the states would create substantial separation-of-powers problems, by permitting probing of the president’s subjective motive in issuing the order,” the brief said.“The focus of our claim,” he said, “is on people who have been here and have, overnight, lost the right to travel, lost the right to visit their families, lost the right to go perform research, lost the right to go speak at conferences around the world. Despite this charge, many states enacted their own immigration policies during the Republic’s early years. WASHINGTON — President Trump’s executive order on immigration has prompted a constitutional showdown that could leave a mark on the law for generations and seems likely to end in a landmark Supreme Court decision.Truman’s actions fell into the third category, Justice Jackson wrote. The Constitution grants the power to shape the nation’s immigration laws to the legislative branch, not the president. But other parts of the Constitution may temper or defeat that power. And also people who had lived here for a long time and happened to be overseas at the time of this order, which came with no warning whatsoever, and suddenly lost the right to return to the United States.”Here is a look at the leading arguments in the case.Judge Gorton also sketched out the broader picture.“Here we have the president acting pursuant to power that Congress gave him, which means, under the Youngstown steel seizure case, he’s acting at the apex of his power,” she said.The most famous part of the decision is a concurrence from Justice Robert H. Jackson, which set out a framework for considering clashes between presidential power and congressional authority. “Conversely, the public interest in safety and security in this ever-more dangerous world is strong as well.” The balance, he wrote, tipped in favor of Mr. Trump.Noah G. Purcell, the solicitor general of Washington State, appeared to concede in court that there were areas in which Mr. Trump was entitled to act. But he asked the court to protect people whose lives had been changed by Mr. Trump’s order in a flash.In its Ninth Circuit brief, the Trump administration called the states’ asserted injuries “attenuated and speculative” and did not address the Texas decision.
The powers of the president of the United States include those powers explicitly granted by Article II of the United States Constitution to the president of the United States, powers granted by Acts of Congress, implied powers, and also a great deal of soft power that is attached to the presidency.
Article II of the Constitution confers authority on the president, the Supreme Court has said, to conduct foreign affairs and address immigration.