If ever there was a reminder why paralysis in the supreme court is far from a neutral thing for Barack Obama, then Thursday’s split decision on immigration reform is it.
The 4-4 deadlock – caused by the president’s continuing struggle to appoint a successor to the late justice Antonin Scalia after his death in February – is, in fact, more than just a short-term setback for White House efforts to shield some 4 million undocumented migrants from the threat of deportation.
The supreme court’s non-judgment mean that the case reverts back to the decision of an unsympathetic fifth circuit court of appeal in New Orleans, which suspended the president’s executive action after he was sued over it in Texas. It also prevents the administration from setting any meaningful legal precedent in the highest court of the land.
Executive action was always a risky bet for Obama. He was forced to adopt this route after the House of Representatives refused to hold a vote on the immigration reform legislation passed by the Senate.
Yet by taking unilateral steps to tell law enforcement not to prioritise deportations in immigration cases, the president had hoped to establish powerful practical precedent that would make it harder for any Republican successor to unpick in future. He has been thwarted in that – and his subdued tone at an hastily convened statement was palpable.
For families, the risk of deportation is hanging over them and few will be able to start taking steps out of the shadows.
But what is bad for Obama’s legacy is not necessarily bad news for Hillary Clinton’s hopes of succeeding him in the White House.
The immigration case serves as a powerful reminder of just how much is at stake in November’s election.
With Donald Trump’s historically high unfavourability ratings, Democrats have a meaningful chance of winning control of the White House, an outside chance of taking control of Congress, and the real prospect of getting to make two or three supreme court appointments in the coming years which will shape the judicial branch for a generation.
Unifying the three branches of government in this way is almost certainly what it would take for Democrats to make lasting progress on vexed issues such as immigration and gun control, while permanently cementing the legacy of Obama’s achievements in areas such as healthcare and gay rights.
And yet, the prospect that Trump could still win the White House and reverse all of those aspirations is a galvanising one for Democrats too.
As Clinton swiftly pointed out in her statement in response to the court’s paralysis, it shows “us all just how high the stakes are in this election”.
