Have extended but what happens here is the president and secretary went to the office of Legal Counsel to scope their authority of the Discretionary Authority and consistently with that so whenever the president may have meant we went to the process to act on that conclusion. Is no challenge to dapa. As a legal matter. I reserve the balance of my time. Mr. Chief justice of that may please the court the texas mothers of u. S. Citizen children have the opportunity to apply for discretionary temporary lease from the daily fear they will be separated from their families and decayed or removed from their homes from the frequently arbitrary enforcement system that fails to provide a reliable opportunity to be identified as a low priority their own state of texas through this suit has blocked the guidance. It to register and apply with a timely decision with a fax to defer action. It is on the indirect and speculative injury to contradict the states old legislative decision after balancing considerations to subsidize and encourage the drivers licenses with no a space cumulative limits on subsidies in that form. You the gift is a legal of texas adopted a policy that everybody lawfully present in texas except those subjects to dapa get a drivers license . I think it would be a challenge to revolve around the circumstances and behind that legislation. But texas has not done that there is no indication that the previous decision would make sense with some endpoint but those circumstances you describe would have one set of deferred action recipients. What if they just said theres too many deferred action people . It doesnt matter why. Political refugee, waiting for a different status status, everybody. I think that is also subject to challenge and the reasoning would be different there may be a preemption played end that that report has indicated. And it has made to chase a law. In those who would been denied a drivers license and in this case that could have equal protection concerns that as this court has indicated. Not only has texas changed. In wooded the more serious banda preemption concerns . All the more reason to wait to the legislative process with the record of why they chose it changed from those who could demonstrate their authorized to be the United States they would decide the tolerated presence that we would have a record why they made that decision. We are not there yet but texas has not made a decision to change and there is no indication. For the record i ask either side the same question that the reason they dont want to give drivers license is it is expensive. Is there any other recent that we could imagine . Is there a serious effort to wrest their claim . We dont want to give them life of anything other than. For the record that in fact, it is a political dispute that they do not agree with the policy adopted by the administration so they have defeated that it is us Discretionary Authority. I am focusing on the narrow question of how texas is hurt specifically not political disagreement but specifically hurt by giving these people drivers license. One way is the cost for the muddy. Are there other ways . No. And in fact, they would face additional expenses that it would change the previous determination and the classic case for standing in the designated decision because it has balanced other considerations. It in the case it is not a financial claim related to the interest over land as a general has indicated it is a procedural right with the Clean Air Act that does not exist here it would be established under that hca itself there is no limit to challenge any domestic policy for any future administration. With the position in the employer would not hire from daca that they are not lawfully authorized that they would prefer somebody else over them . Within the theory of discrimination . They could but it has not been clearly established it is the clash with an employer who wants to hire someone. Of that history gives them a legal right to to put them in a low priority prosecution. It is important to know it is the separate determination from deferred action itself not everyone gets that Work Authorization of several legal right. A kiss them the right to work. However i also need to go back to standing 2. 0 to it has nothing whatsoever to do with a drivers license. When you answered the question you are not saying that . The question is the legal right. It is far from clear i think the president is not clear enough to determine the outcome. Would assure position . It would be if something should be litigated in all candor we have so establish precedent to make it clear one way or the other. They do have Work Authorization and that means they are not subject to the unreasonable and discriminatory and it is different from when they dont but it has no relationship that they could receive a license without having that Work Authorization there is no connection between the two. That would not address the injury. The court upheld the arizona statute with a severe Civil Penalties those employed in the rituals to read not authorized to work so if the employer and arizona warda dapa beneficiaries or the state attempts to impose this bin. Guest dapa provides a Legal Defense . I believe it would be before that because with that requirement those who work authorized should cut back as authorized workers so the state of arizona is in part to get that courts blessing that they would not be in a position for what you described. Prior to dapa they would be subject to those penalties. That is correct. Worth authorization is an authorization to work. Basically to say of the deferred action determination, but that Work Authorization has no relationship to the alleged injury of drivers licenses. My time is up. General . Thank you, mr. Chairman chief justice. Made it please the coat the court the unlawful of exertion of executive power when old age largest changes in immigration policy in history. How do you say that . That happened in 1990, it granted basically the deferred action in the Work Authorization to 1. 5 billion people law of 4,000,000,040 percent of the immigrant population at this time was affected here the best estimate is only 35 percent. Sova least the president has taken action of a greater percentage than now so why is it the largest . The number of people . Unfairness it is a voluntary Departure Program and also with only 47,000 were there and what congress did in 1996. Decided to step and some members decided to do that so they have remained silent that doesnt mean that no later point that they cannot do what they need to do. But they could create statutory belief and to do so of a deep Economic Significance. But you say that 11 million and authorized to hear the shadow they are in the economy whether we want to or not Congress Really didnt want to then it would be the amount of money necessary. What congress did in 1986 and 96 with benefits is it was a mechanism to enforce immigration law. And those of our of lawfully present and congress put forward the benefits for what the executives are trying to do with that determination. Except that ability for the attorneygeneral has changed since 1986 congress has not taken that way. Is still hasnt done the regulation. 86 congress add as a comprehensive remark that was the decision to repudiate to adapt a federal ban. Deregulation from the attorney general to give of deferred action individuals since that time . Executive said that was so small that the impact on the labor market is minimal so regardless that congress may have acquiesced it has always been known to be a small class of individuals. It was part of a large class of 1990. 40 of the legal population. That was a fairly significant number. In fact, it expanded the program the president had started. Congress responded capping that at 120 days and then they knowledge they can no longer authorized that it but with deferred action only granted 501,000 per year no way congress would have acquiesced. With those larger numbers with the visa larger than the numbers you were approaching right now. In this is an extra step it is not abridging lawful status. Kennedy back if he steps . That you have conceded the you have looked at the legality of dapa to take out the Social Security benefits . Is that correct . No. I will be very clear. When it is for very removal on a case by case basis and that was deferred action discretion. Let me make sure a understand that the government could do this one by one because the government could not identify but not for burying enforcement. Correct. That could be simply for bearing for ruth all spirit that is what i as originally that there was not Work Authorization attached with no benefits attached. Given the case they are removing the 400,000 we is mitt they could do for barrons forbearance. It says they can give cards to all the people to say no priority. So with authorization and Social Security for everyone who fits into this category. It could do that whether granting lawful presence in general are you just referring to that single phrase in the memorandum . Because mr. Verrilli says you could strike strike the phrase today with no legal consequence whatsoever to do exactly what you said is to grant forbearances to tell people you are not the enforcement priority until we say otherwise which could be tomorrow. Fox that is key because that is the first time they have taken that position but because what the executives do with deferred action is they are creating a status we go that because of one says lawfully present to be qualified have deferred action status to say just because we are four very for removal that doesnt mean you are present but what is going on is the transformation that is far more that entails certain things. So just take out of Work Authorization and take up the phrase to say you are a low priority the will the support you a must change our mind. To grant that status. Can they do that . But my hypothetical is it you are suggesting it has some legal consequence that mine is however many Million People in it is unless we change our mind. But this is a league that they could do that all at once. Yes and were not challenging the prioritization. So maybe it is a real break. The real break is to the Work Authorization. And unlawful presence. And what they could strike out in a moment and the reason it is wrong it is in a memorandum stick is that a statutory term . Is dead set here in the Social Security medicare even against statute that case from the fifth circuit in a treated as events parole that we do know that daca have got green cards for citizenship in the process. And for what you should be with the Work Authorization regulation of vhs or the iea has had four other connections that it is making with respect to these people. What is transforming an unlawful conduct i did see anything about dapa. It did not mention suez a specified period of time the individual permitted to be lawfully present in the United States. To take that position of legal consequence seven has been misquoted for what is going on with tolerated presence otherwise theyre not authorized to be in the country sorry they can get medicare or Social Security or gun possession but that is not working for those who get drivers licenses so if someone is authorized to be the United States they are eligible. Need to be authorized to be in the country but we have to rely on the federal government is someone is eligible for a drivers license we run that to the federal state background system is this individual authorized to be in the country . They say yes or no. They also say you dont have to do that so why dont you go ahead to give a drivers license . That we are in a catch22 either dont occur billions of dollars of financial harm or change the law to come up with a different background check system without a uniform policy. How does somebody get a license . I noted york and washington. So you go and do what . You go to the department of Motor Vehicles show the documentation of who you are. In this is outlining the process that the state verifies the individual has authorization to be in the country. Why is it very long . Sometimes people wait the entire day and then they keep coming back is not an ideal situation from the frustration so why is it you have to spend all this money . Why cant you have the regular process . So if the drivers license recipients to get through Airport Security has the integrity through the federal government some have to check. Why do you have to ramp up . I think one of those allocations is to assume that it is true that your affidavit estimates the lawsuits is a process that is made up basically because there is already have built and profit and you dont know if you have to add all of this personnel to go up to the dmv and one day. And the members will be much less no matter what. So the question that i have is why . The reason is there will be a spike in the applicants of the drivers licenses. To process the paperwork to make determinations. I got a temporary peace of paper edited weeks to get the regular license to do what it would do as fast or as low. But a drug either side has said it is clear. But it is a jurisdiction. But it might not be true . Would that be standing just on that basis . We have a fact finding that has not been challenged but it will cost more money. Is there Something Else . Money is money. And this is technical but it is important and looking at the brief with senators on both sides and the states double sides in the members of congress why . Because a tremendous political data. Keep that in mind. So keeping that in mind whats go back to those cases that are scarcely mentioned. If they are submerged, like icebergs, the one i am thinking of, massachusetts the note, and there in those cases the federal government had giving had given something to those people. Other peoples wont be sued because they said, that means we will have to pay more money. The court said, you other people from massachusetts, im sorry, but lo and behold, that is just a tivo just because i am from massachusetts, it is because they lost, says the court, we cannot let you just see one basis. You as a taxpayer will have to spend more money. If we do, taxpayers all over the country will be suing in all kinds of cases, many of which will involve nothing more than political disagreements of all kinds, and before you know it, power will be transferred from the president and the congress, where power belongs, to a group of unelected judges. And for that reason, we say, you individuals will have to pay more money, cannot just sue on that basis, and as for the state, it cannot represent you because this is between the federal government and the citizens. Therethey are the ones who have to pay. As far as massachusetts is concerned, again bringing kuppercaseletter one, that was their own coastline and not money but the physical territory belonging to massachusetts, and of course they have standing to protect that. I have finished. You see my point, and i want to know how you get around that. When you give a benefit here , hurt the taxpayer via money over there, it does not have the kind of interest. We are raising financial harm. We are raising sovereign harms. We have ceded to the federal government the authority. Now, sovereign harm, realize because if a state cannot sue, and its citizens cannot sue to stop the feds from giving somebody a benefit on the ground it will cost the state or individuals more money, surely they cannot sue just by announcing it requires a change in law, or sovereign interest is hurt. Then every case of political disagreement were states disagree would come before the court. I think a lot of those cases would be taking care of through causation requirements, injury, and zone of interest. For instance, just a gross income and Veterans Benefits all of those cases would be screened out through the zone of interest test. We put forward over a thousand pages of evidence with over a dozen declarations and fact findings finding exactly what arizona versus the United States said. When we can come to court and show a concrete and concrete injury and policy that is causing an injury, and that is precisely but that pits the states against every federal agency , and any harm, financial harm that indirectly flows from change in policy would be subject to attack. Let me give you a prime example. Imagine texas passed a law forbidding its state pension plan from investing in any Financial Company whatsoever. The federal Stability Oversight Council declares systematically important. Too big to fail. Tex is reasonably does not want to invest money in companies that if they fail are going to tank the economy. Now lets say the federal government sets out a policy memorandum that says, and our discretion, we are not going to declare some Insurance Firms under a certain size as too big to fail. We just dont think we should. Okay . Why cant the state sue that federal agency and say, the law mandates that you tell us who is too big to fail. I dont think states would be protected by laws governing which banks are too big to fail. The states are protected by immigration laws. I think that would be weeded out under the zone of interest test. Were already said in our writing that you cannot tell the federal government who to say is legally or not legally present here. You dont have the right to set immigration policy, and thatpolicy, and that is not in the zone of interest of the immigration law. We absolutely are, and that is precisely why am standing here. Just because the federal government pervasively regulates immigration, that does not mean states dont have a Significant Interest on who is within their borders. We have an easily identifiable sovereign interest