It was early last year when WND broke the story that a federal judge in Texas had granted a temporary injunction halting Obama's unilateral action to allow as many as 5 million illegal aliens stay in the U.S.
The administration had acted apart from Congress, even though Obama had acknowledged he is "not king" and "can't do these things just by myself." The 2015 ruling by U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen later was affirmed at the appellate level.
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court appeared to be moving toward agreement with the lower courts as well as Obama's affirmation that he doesn't have the power to make laws.
After oral arguments before the eight justices in a lawsuit by states challenging Obama's authority, the the New York Daily News said the court was divided "between its liberal and conservative justices," and Obama's best hope was that some argument will swing Chief Justice John Roberts over to his side.
TRENDING: St. Patrick's role on the 'external hard drive'
Otherwise, a 4-4 split would let stand the lower court's ruling halting the de facto amnesty. There are only eight justices because of the death earlier this year of Antonin Scalia.
The Daily News said Roberts asked questions suggesting he could side with the administration if the administration removed its description of illegal immigrants as having a "lawful presence."
But Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., a member of the House Judiciary Committee, said the Constitution "couldn't be any clearer."
"It's Congress's job to write the laws and it's the president's job to see that they are faithfully executed," he said. "The president can't just upend the Constitution any time the Congress disagrees with him. The separation of powers requires the president to seek congressional approval before policies can become law. That's how the legislative process works and it is one of the things that distinguishes democracy from dictatorship, where a head of state simply rules by decree. President Obama doesn’t get to cheat the system just because it's difficult."
Issa said the case "comes down to is whether or not President Obama wildly overstepped the bounds of his office by unlawfully acting to circumvent Congress and forcing his will on the American people."
"I am confident the Supreme Court will uphold the Constitution and affirm that Congress – not the president – makes our laws," he said.
As WND reported, Obama on Nov. 20, 2014, announced he was unilaterally making changes to the nation's immigration laws, but he never signed an executive order, as widely believed. Hanen’s 123-page opinion in February 2015 made it clear the issue at hand was not an executive order but a memorandum issued by Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson deferring deportation of certain illegal aliens.
Issa noted Obama had stated at least 22 times that he does not have the power to make the changes to immigration law. So when he took that action, Texas and 25 other states sued.
The Daily News said Roberts' interest in changing two words to make Obama's actions lawful met some resistance.
Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. argued to the justices that they could remove the phrase and essentially leave the programs unchanged, but lawyer Erin Murphy, representing Congress, said it couldn't be done that easily.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, who sometimes sides with the liberals, expressed doubts about Obama's de facto amnesty, calling his decision to act and then get Congress to approve "upside down."
Obama wants to delay the deportation of an estimated 4 to 5 million illegal aliens.
The Texas lawsuit was filed when the states suddenly faced massive new demands for public services such as schooling and health care from foreigners who previously had been subject to deportation.
One hundred and thirteen members of Congress – including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Sens. John Cornyn and Ted Cruz, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte and former House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith – filed a brief in the case asserting Obama's plans are illegal.
"Our position is clear – President Obama's executive action is unconstitutional and impermissibly disrupts the separation of powers," said Jay Sekulow, of the American Center for Law and Justice.
His organization is representing the 113 members of Congress and nearly a quarter-million other Americans "who understand President Obama's overreach amounted to changing the law." The friend-of-the-court pleading was submitted to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which earlier upheld Hanen's order.
"This is simply unacceptable. Impatient presidents don't get to change the law. We're confident that the appeals court will correctly conclude that President Obama's action is unlawful and unconstitutional and will upholding the findings of the district court," Sekulow said.
In his Texas courtroom, Hanenbluntly asked a Justice Department attorney whether or not Obama and federal officials can be believed regarding the administration's executive action on immigration.
"I can trust what Secretary [Jeh] Johnson says … what President Obama says?" Hanen asked, according to the Los Angeles Times.
Fox News reported the judge even went further, instructing Justice Department attorney Kathleen Hartnett, "That's a yes or no question."
She responded, "Yes, your honor."
Hanen called the hearing because of questions about whether the Justice Department misled the judge by claiming that deportation reprieves would not go forward before he made a ruling. It turned out that federal officials had delayed deportation for 108,000 people for three years and granted them work permits.
The administration had argued the reprieves were granted under a 2012 program that was not impacted by Hanen's order. But the 2012 program, called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, granted only two-year reprieves, while Obama's November order allows three-year deferrals.
Hartnett told the judge "government attorneys hadn't properly explained this because they had been focused on other parts of the proposed action," Fox reported.
Hanen remained skeptical, and it was then he asked, "Can I trust what the president says?"
Â