Boehner plans lawsuit against Obama over executive orders
Deirdre Walsh
Posted by
CNN Senior Congressional Producer Deirdre Walsh
Updated 3:15 p.m. ET, 6/25/14

Washington (CNN) – House Speaker John Boehner Wednesday told reporters that he plans to sue President Barack Obama over his use of executive action.

"I am," the Speaker said when asked if he was planning to initiate a lawsuit.

"You know the constitution makes it clear that the president’s job is to faithfully execute the laws and in my view the President has not faithfully executed the laws," Boehner added at a news conference on Capitol Hill.



Boehner announced later Wednesday that in July he would bring a bill to the House floor authorizing a Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group to file the lawsuit against the President. He last convened the group in 2011 when the White House said it would no longer defend the anti same-sex marriage law, the Defense of Marriage Act.

The group is made up of the top three House GOP leaders and the top two Democratic leaders.

In a memo to House members announcing next month's vote, Boehner indicated the legal action would cover a number of issues but did not cite specific cases of executive overreach.

"On matters ranging from health care and energy to foreign policy and education, President Obama has repeatedly run an end-around on the American people and their elected legislators, straining the boundaries of the solemn oath he took on Inauguration Day,' the memo said.

The Speaker denied that the move was about energizing Republicans ahead the midterm elections.

"This is about defending the institution in which we serve. If you look back over the past 235 years of our history there's been movement between the inherent powers of the executive branch vs the inherent powers of the legislative branch and what we've seen clearly over the past 5 years is an effort to erode the power of the legislative branch," the Speaker said in response to a question from CNN.

Republicans argue that the President is breaching his constitutional power by side-stepping the legislative process. Obama has used executive actions as a way to bypass a deeply divided Congress, avoiding inaction on issues the White House has made hallmarks of the President's second term agenda.

So far, the Republican-controlled House has passed two bills aimed at curbing executive orders by the President, neither of which have gone anywhere in the Democratic-controlled Senate.


The White House responded Wednesday to Boehner's plans to bring a lawsuit against the President, pointing the blame at the GOP for uncompromising opposition to Obama's policies.

"For a long time we have seen Republicans block progress in Congress, a range of bills that would promote economic strength but in this case it seems that Republicans have shifted their opposition into a higher gear," spokesman Josh Earnest said at the White House press briefing.

"Frankly, it's a gear I didn't know previously existed.'

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi Wednesday called the lawsuit "a subterfuge" and said Republicans in Congress are "doing nothing" and "they have to give some aura of activity."

Pelosi said the House GOP effort to challenge the Defense of Marriage Act in court wasted $2.3 million in taxpayer money, and said "here we go again."

Obama has used his executive authority to push through a number of issues. Most recently, he directed the Department of Labor to extend family leave to same-sex couples. Previously, he raised the minimum wage for federal contractors and halt deportations for many children in the United States illegally.

Rank and file House Republicans have been pushing for months for top GOP leaders to file a lawsuit.

Conservative Republicans have long complained that the President has overstepped his authority – citing the series of changes that the Obama has made on his own to tweak the implementation of Obamacare.

Congressional Republicans, fueled by anger from their grassroots supporters, also argued it was time to explore legal action when the President began saying in January that he had a “pen and a phone” and would take action on key priorities if Congress failed to move legislation.

One avenue Boehner could take is to convene a Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group - something he did in 2011 when the White House said it would no longer defend the anti same-sex marriage law, the Defense of Marriage Act.

Since there is only a day and a half left before Congress heads out for a week long recess, the lawsuit is not expected to be filed until next month. The lawmakers who make up the group – the top three House GOP leaders and the top two Democratic leaders – will have to meet and vote – and – that isn’t expected to happen until after Congress gets back from 4th of July break.

Boehner just so happened to be with the President on Tuesday, along with Vice President Joe Biden, at the White House to meet with members of the 2013 U.S. and International Presidents Cup teams. And the mood didn't seem to be too tense between the House leader and the commander-in-chief, given reports of Boehner's possible lawsuit.

Obama joked: "I'm joined by two of my favorite golf partners, the Vice President of the United States Joe Biden and Speaker of the House John Boehner."

Commissioner Tim Finchem jokingly said that he's been keeping track of who criticizes the President about his golf game, and Boehner was not among his critics.

"The only thing that he doesn't criticize me about," the President added, to laughs.

The Speaker denied that the move was about energizing Republicans ahead the midterm elections.

Boehner plans lawsuit against Obama over executive orders

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
"So this is being done by a bipartisan group, and I'm guessing that this fact will be largely ignored.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
"So this is being done by a bipartisan group, and I'm guessing that this fact will be largely ignored.

It isn't being done by anything as it has to pass to actually be more than rhetoric; it is a bill being presented by a partisan leader to grab headlines.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So this is being done by a bipartisan group, and I'm guessing that this fact will be largely ignored.

 Ouze wrote:
If you define "bipartisan" as "directed by the partisan Majority leader, consisting of 3 republicans and 2 democrats who (unsurprisingly) will then play the Republican role over 2 nay votes", then, sure, it's "bipartisan" - keep fething that chicken.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
If you define "bipartisan" as "directed by the partisan Majority leader, consisting of 3 republicans and 2 democrats who (unsurprisingly) will then play the Republican role over 2 nay votes", then, sure, it's "bipartisan" - keep fething that chicken.

Then I await the other members of the panel de-crying the lawsuit

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
If you define "bipartisan" as "directed by the partisan Majority leader, consisting of 3 republicans and 2 democrats who (unsurprisingly) will then play the Republican role over 2 nay votes", then, sure, it's "bipartisan" - keep fething that chicken.

Then I await the other members of the panel de-crying the lawsuit

 Ouze wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So this is being done by a bipartisan group, and I'm guessing that this fact will be largely ignored.

If you define "bipartisan" as "directed by the partisan Majority leader, consisting of 3 republicans and 2 democrats who (unsurprisingly) will then play the Republican role over 2 nay votes", then, sure, it's "bipartisan" - keep fething that chicken.

Mr. Boehner actually DOES have a remedy for executive overreach, of course, but civil litigation isn't it.

 Ouze wrote:
I am quite confident we'll have exactly that, if/as soon as it's actually filed

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I am quite confident we'll have exactly that, if/as soon as it's actually filed

With partisan politics in Washington that doesn't surprise me, but then again I don't agree with the concept of executive orders generally

 Jihadin wrote:
Its not about the total number of Executive Orders he signed.
One of the things Obama is being sued for is the policy he enacted via Executive Order concerning unaccompanied immigration of minors to the US.

 d-usa wrote:
If only there was some way for the legislative branch to write laws that can overwrite executive orders. Why doesn't the Constitution include some sort of system for checks and balances between the branches...

 d-usa wrote:
If only there was some way for the legislative branch to write laws that can overwrite executive orders. Why doesn't the Constitution include some sort of system for checks and balances between the branches...

United States Presidents issue executive orders to help officers and agencies of the executive branch manage the operations within the federal government itself. Executive orders have the full force of law[1] when they take authority from a power granted directly to the Executive by the Constitution, or are made in pursuance of certain Acts of Congress that explicitly delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation). Like statutes or regulations promulgated by government agencies, executive orders are subject to judicial review, and may be struck down if deemed by the courts to be unsupported by statute or the Constitution. Major policy initiatives usually require approval by the legislative branch, but executive orders have significant influence over the internal affairs of government, deciding how and to what degree laws will be enforced, dealing with emergencies, waging war, and in general fine policy choices in the implementation of broad statutes

Until 1952, there were no rules or guidelines outlining what the president could or could not do through an executive order. However, the Supreme Court ruled in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 US 579 (1952) that Executive Order 10340 from President Harry S. Truman placing all steel mills in the country under federal control was invalid because it attempted to make law, rather than clarify or act to further a law put forth by the Congress or the Constitution. Presidents since this decision have generally been careful to cite which specific laws they are acting under when issuing new executive orders.

Wars have been fought upon executive order, including the 1999 Kosovo War during Bill Clinton's second term in office. However, all such wars have had authorizing resolutions from Congress. The extent to which the president may exercise military power independently of Congress and the scope of the War Powers Resolution remain unresolved constitutional issues, although all presidents since its passage have complied with the terms of the Resolution while maintaining that they are not constitutionally required to do so

Advance parole is an immigration document issued by the United States. It is not a re-entry permit; it is only issued to aliens without permanent residency. Advance Parole is permission for certain aliens, who do not have a valid immigrant visa, to re-enter the United States after traveling abroad. Such aliens include those who have applied to adjust their status to that of permanent resident or to change non-immigrant status. Advance parole must be approved before the applicant leaves the United States, or any residency application will in general be denied.

Aliens in the United States who have:

an application for adjustment of status pending.
been admitted as a refugee or have been granted asylum.
been granted benefits under the Family Unity Program.
been granted Temporary Protected Status.
an asylum application pending.
an emergent personal or bona fide reason to travel temporarily abroad.

Note: Aliens holding valid K-3 or K-4 visas, as well as H-1 (temporary worker in a specialty occupation) or L-1 (intra-company transferee) visas and their dependents in H-4 or L-2 status who have filed for adjustment of status do not have to file for advance parole as long as they maintain their non-immigrant status. [1]

Arriving Alien

Matter of Oseiwusu, 22 I&N Dec. 19 (BIA 1998)

(1) An alien who arrives in the United States pursuant to a grant of advance parole is an “arriving alien,” as that term is defined in the federal regulations.

(2) According to the regulations, an Immigration Judge has no authority over the apprehension, custody, and detention of arriving aliens and is therefore without authority to consider the bond request of an alien returning pursuant to a grant of advance parole.

 whembly wrote:
That entails Congress doing their job... eh?

 d-usa wrote:
If only there was some way for the legislative branch to write laws that can overwrite executive orders. Why doesn't the Constitution include some sort of system for checks and balances between the branches...