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> 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> 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 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> 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 court issued a one-paragraph statement granting the administration's request for a stay of the latest legal maneuvering involving the president's executive order on immigration. There were no recorded dissents to the decision.

At issue is whether the president can block a group of about 24,000 refugees, who have assurances from sponsors, from entering the United States. A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit had interpreted a Supreme Court directive this summer to mean that such refugees should be allowed in, but the government objected.

The latest court actions are part of a complicated legal battle that began in January when President Donald Trump issued his first version of an entry ban. The Supreme Court is to consider the merits of his actions at a hearing Oct. 10.

The current case grows out of a Supreme Court decision in June that approved a limited version of a presidential order that temporarily blocked refugees and citizens of six majority-Muslim countries.

The justices said Trump could impose a limited version of the measure, but not on a person with a "bona fide" connection to the United States, such as having family members here, a job offer or a place in a U.S. university.

It is the interpretation of a "bona fide" connection to the United States that is being debated.

The government initially declined to include grandparents and other members of the extended family as meeting that standard, as well as refugees with formal assurances. A federal district judge said the government's reading was too broad and stopped it.

The Supreme Court largely upheld that ruling in July, although it put on hold the portion dealing with refugees.

Last week, a panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals weighed in, deciding that the administration could block neither grandparents nor refugees with assurances.

The Justice Department this week asked the Supreme Court to step in again - although only to block refugees, not grandparents and other relatives beyond the nuclear family. Even those refugees with formal assurances from a resettlement agency lack the sort of connection that should exempt them from the ban, the Justice Department argued in its new filing to the Supreme Court.

"The absence of a formal connection between a resettlement agency and a refugee subject to an assurance stands in stark contrast to the sort of relationships this court identified as sufficient in its June 26 stay ruling," Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey B. Wall wrote in his filing.

"Unlike students who have been admitted to study at an American university, workers who have accepted jobs at an American company, and lecturers who come to speak to an American audience, refugees do not have any free-standing connection to resettlement agencies, separate and apart from the refugee-admissions process itself, by virtue of the agencies' assurance agreement with the government," the filing said.

In response, the state of Hawaii, which is challenging the travel ban, told the Supreme Court that the government's argument made no sense.

"Refugees with formal assurances are the category of foreign nationals least likely to implicate the national security rationales the government has pointed to in the past," wrote Washington lawyer Neal Katyal, who is representing Hawaii.

"By the government's own admission, these refugees have already been approved by the Department of Homeland Security. It is therefore exceedingly unlikely that they represent a security threat."

Time is beginning to become a factor in the broader fight over Trump's travel ban. The measure was supposed to have been temporary - lasting 90 days for citizens of the six affected countries, and 120 days for refugees. If the measure is considered to have taken effect when the Supreme Court allowed partial implementation, the 90 days will have passed by the time the justices hear arguments Oct. 10, and the 120 days are very likely to have passed by the time they issue a decision.

Some deadlines for reports have also seemingly passed. The Department of Homeland Security secretary was - within 20 days of the order taking effect - to have given Trump the results of a worldwide review determining what information was necessary from other countries to vet travelers. The countries that were not supplying adequate information were then to be given 50 days to begin doing so, and after that, top U.S. officials were to give Trump a list of countries whose citizens would be recommended for inclusion in a more permanent travel ban.

A Homeland Security spokesman said that a report was delivered to the White House in early July on the results of the review and that officials then went about assessing each country on the information it provided

He said Homeland Security officials were "evaluating the information received and will provide a report to the president in the coming weeks." </s> U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions said on Friday that the Justice Department will ask the Supreme Court to block a judge’s ruling that prevented President Donald Trump’s travel ban from being applied to grandparents of U.S. citizens and refugees already being processed by resettlement agencies.

Sessions said in a statement that the administration would “reluctantly return directly to the Supreme Court” in a bid to overturn Thursday’s decision by a U.S. district judge in Hawaii, which limited the scope of the administration’s temporary ban on refugees and travelers from six Muslim-majority countries.

“By this decision, the district court has improperly substituted its policy preferences for the national security judgments of the executive branch in a time of grave threats, defying both the lawful prerogatives of the executive branch and the directive of the Supreme Court,” Sessions Said.

The Supreme Court last month said the ban could take effect, but that people with a “bona fide relationship” to a U.S. person or entity could not be barred.

The administration had narrowly interpreted that language, saying the ban would apply to grandparents and other family members, prompting the state of Hawaii to ask Hawaii-based U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson to expand the definition of who could be admitted.

The conservative-leaning Supreme Court is not currently in session, but the justices can handle emergency requests. The administration’s application could be directed either to Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has responsibility for emergency requests from western states, or to the nine justices as a whole. If the court as a whole is asked to weigh in, five votes are needed to grant such a request.

Separately, the Justice Department filed papers in Hawaii federal court saying it would appeal Watson’s ruling to the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. It was not immediately clear whether that is a separate appeal.

Earlier on Friday, White House homeland security adviser Tom Bossert told reporters that the ruling appeared to be “fairly broad and something that would trouble me if it was as broad as reported.”

Bossert, speaking aboard Air Force One as the president returned from a trip to Paris, focused his remarks on the part of the ruling that would allow more refugees to enter the country, saying the ruling could be interpreted as “so expansive as to cover every refugee.”

In his decision, Watson harshly criticized the government’s definition of close family relations as “the antithesis of common sense.”

Watson also ruled that the assurance by a resettlement agency to provide basic services to a newly arrived refugee constitutes an adequate connection to the United States because it is a sufficiently formal and documented agreement that triggers responsibilities and compensation.

The ruling, if left in place, means refugees can continue to be resettled in the United States, beyond a cap of 50,000 set by the executive order. That limit was reached this week.

The Supreme Court’s decision last month revived parts of Trump’s March 6 executive order banning travelers from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen for 90 days, as well as refugees for 120 days. The court also agreed to hear oral arguments in the fall over whether the ban violates the U.S. Constitution. </s> WASHINGTON -- The fierce battle over U.S. President Donald Trump's travel and refugee ban edged up the judicial escalator Monday, headed for a possible final face-off at the Supreme Court. Travelers, temporarily unbound, tearfully reunited with loved ones at U.S. airports.

The Justice Department filed a new defence of Trump's ban on travellers from seven predominantly Muslim nations as a federal appeals court weighs whether to restore the administration's executive order. The lawyers said the travel ban was a "lawful exercise" of the president's authority to protect national security and said a judge's order that put the policy on hold should be overruled.

The filing with the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was the latest salvo in a high-stakes legal fight surrounding Trump's order, which was halted Friday by a federal judge in Washington state.

The judges are to hear arguments Tuesday.

The appeals court earlier refused to immediately reinstate the ban, and lawyers for Washington and Minnesota -- two states challenging it -- argued anew on Monday that any resumption would "unleash chaos again," separating families and stranding university students.

The Justice Department responded that the president has clear authority to "suspend the entry of any class of aliens" to the U.S. in the name of national security. It said the travel ban, which temporarily suspends the country's refugee program and immigration from seven countries with terrorism concerns, was intended "to permit an orderly review and revision of screening procedures to ensure that adequate standards are in place to protect against terrorist attacks."

The challengers of the ban, the Justice Department wrote, were asking "courts to take the extraordinary step of second-guessing a formal national security judgment made by the president himself pursuant to broad grants of statutory authority."

Whatever the appeals court decides, either side could ask the Supreme Court to intervene.

It could prove difficult, though, to find the necessary five votes at the high court to undo a lower court order; the Supreme Court has been at less than full strength since Justice Antonin Scalia's death a year ago. The last immigration case that reached the justices ended in a 4-4 tie.

The president's executive order has faced legal uncertainty ever since Friday's ruling by U.S. District Judge James Robart, which challenged both Trump's authority and his ability to fulfil a campaign promise.

The State Department quickly said people from the seven countries -- Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen -- could travel to the U.S. if they had valid visas. The Homeland Security Department said it was no longer directing airlines to prevent affected visa holders from boarding U.S.-bound planes.

On Monday in Colorado, a graduate student who had travelled to Libya with her 1-year-old son to visit her sick mother and attend her father's funeral was back in Fort Collins after having been stopped in Jordan on her return trip. She was welcomed with flowers and balloons by her husband and other children.

Two Yemeni brothers whose family has sued over the travel ban, and who'd been turned away in the chaotic opening days of the order, arrived at Dulles International Airport in Virginia, where they were greeted by their father.

"America is for everybody," Aqel Aziz said after greeting his sons.

Syrian immigrant Mathyo Asali said he thought his life was "ruined" when he landed at Philadelphia International Airport on Jan. 28 only to be denied entry to the United States. Asali, who returned to Damascus, said he figured he'd be inducted into the Syrian military. He was back on U.S. soil Monday.

"It's really nice to know that there's a lot of people supporting us," Asali told Gov. Tom Wolf, who greeted the family at a relative's house in Allentown.

The legal fight involves two divergent views of the role of the executive branch and the court system.

The government has asserted that the president alone has the power to decide who can enter or stay in the United States, while Robart has said a judge's job is to ensure that an action taken by the government "comports with our country's laws."

His Friday ruling triggered a Twitter rant by Trump, who dismissed Robart as a "so-called judge." On Sunday, Trump tweeted, "Just cannot believe a judge would put our country in such peril. If something happens blame him and court system. People pouring in. Bad!"

States challenging the ban have been joined by technology companies, who have said it makes it more difficult to recruit employees. National security officials under President Barack Obama have also come out against it. A declaration filed by John Kerry and Madeleine Albright, former secretaries of state, and others said the ban would disrupt lives and cripple U.S. counterterrorism partnerships without making the nation safer.

"It will aid ISIL's propaganda effort and serve its recruitment message by feeding into the narrative that the United States is at war with Islam," they wrote.

How and when a case might get to the Supreme Court is unclear. The travel ban itself is to expire in 90 days, meaning it could run its course before a higher court takes up the issue. Or the administration could change it in any number of ways that would keep the issue alive.

The bench also could be full, with a new ninth justice on board, by the time the court is ready to hear arguments. If Judge Neil Gorsuch is confirmed this spring as Senate Republicans hope, chances of a tie vote would disappear.

Associated Press writers Eugene Johnson and Martha Bellisle in Seattle, Matthew Barakat in Chantilly, Virginia, Michael Rubinkam in Allentown, Pennsylvania, Colleen Slevin in Denver and Mark Sherman in Washington contributed to this report.
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.