Supreme Court appears divided on Obama's immigration orders

U.S. Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday will hear a case, U.S. v. Texas, that could significantly rein in President Obama's ambitious – and unilateral – immigration amnesty goals via a states' challenge to his Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, or DAPA, program.

DAPA, which has been held up from implementation, would allow certain categories of illegal immigrants to stay in America to work, so long as they have already been in-country for at least five years and have maintained a criminal-free record.

The 'Stop Hillary' campaign is on fire! Join the surging response to this theme: 'Clinton for prosecution, not president'

Obama announced the program as an executive order in November 2014, chiding Republicans for failing to act on his immigration goals.

Texas and several other states launched a lawsuit to halt the plan from taking effect, and shortly after, a federal district judge in Texas and a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit found in favor for the states – that the White House could not implement its program.

But the Obama administration fought back, claiming the states don't have standing, or legal authority, to sue the federal government over immigration policy.

The Supreme Court's Justice Anthony Kennedy is being closely watched. As the Washington Post noted, Kennedy wrote a decision for the court in 2012 that scaled back Arizona's attempt to crack down on illegal immigration in the state. The White House's legal team cited that case heavily in its documents and filings to the Supreme Court as proof the federal government in general, and the executive branch in particular, hold considerable power to oversee the country's immigration policy.

Case watchers are also keeping a close eye on Chief Justice John Roberts, who has given more than a passing glance to standing issues. Still, predicting court's behavior is risky business.

Ann Coulter's back, and she's never been better than in "Adios, America!: The Left's Plan to Turn our Country into a Third World Hellhole."

The Washington Post reported the Supreme Court, while accepting the case in January, added a bit of constitutional concern to address – specifically, whether Obama's executive actions violated the Take Care Clause, requiring the president of the United States to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

Republicans have accused Obama of willfully bypassing the Constitution, but that argument may be a tough sell to the justices, given the death of Justice Antonin Scalia and the need to win over at least one of the four more liberal minds on the court in order to win that point.