SALT LAKE CITY — Utah is part of a 17-state coalition that filed a lawsuit Wednesday against the Obama administration over the president's recently announced executive orders on immigration.

Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes, attending the National Association of Attorneys General meetings in Austin, said "the president, regardless of political party, must respect the rule of law and a balance of powers."

Reyes, in a statement, said the lawsuit was not about immigration.

"Whether you agree or disagree with some, all or none of the president's proposal is not the point. The process is what is being challenged. The process is not legal. Regardless of how you feel about the policy, it does not justify implementation in an unconstitutional manner," he said.

The lawsuit, filed in a federal court in Texas, raises three basic objections:

• That President Barack Obama violated the "Take Care Clause" of the Constitution, which limits the scope of presidential power;

• That the federal government didn't follow proper rule-making procedures; and

• That the order will exacerbate the humanitarian crisis along the southern border, which will affect increased state investment in law enforcement, health care and education.

It is ironic, Reyes wrote, that the Obama administration, through the Department of Justice, argued that states were pre-empted from passing immigration laws because Congress had the exclusive jurisdiction for enactment of such laws.

The DOJ intervened in a federal lawsuit filed by civil rights organizations that challenged an immigration enforcement law, HB497, passed by the Utah Legislature in 2011. Portions of the law were struck down, and the remaining parts were addressed in a settlement agreement between the state and plaintiffs' attorneys.

"Ironically, the president has now done the exact thing he claimed states were not permitted to do. As with the states, the president's attempt at lawmaking should be reviewed by the courts," the statement says.

Other states that are parties to the lawsuit are Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

The states seek no monetary damages but instead want the courts to block Obama's actions.

Obama's executive order announced on Nov. 20 extends protection from deportation and the right to work to an estimated 4.1 million parents of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents who have lived in the United States for at least five years and to hundreds of thousands more young people.

It also extends the window of the previously announced Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals initiative to three years and expands the pool of people who qualify for that consideration. Deferred Action does not confer legal immigration status, but it means authorities will defer removal actions for a three-year period.

Related:

Poll: 48% of Americans oppose immigration executive action

About half of all Americans disapprove of President Barack Obama's incoming executive action on immigration despite agreeing with Obama on principle, according to a recent poll.

Tim Wheelwright, a Salt Lake attorney whose specializes in immigration matters for U.S. employers, their employees and other individuals, said every president since 1956 has used executive authority to grant some form of temporary immigration relief.

"Every president has exercised executive authority on immigration policy. I've looked closely at legal opinions on this issue, and even though the immigration benefits are quite significant for many, it's actually a very restrained policy and there's statutory legal authority for the deferred action," Wheelwright said.

Congress has given the president statutory authority to exercise discretion actually quite broadly within that deferred action, Wheelwright said.

"He's been very careful to make sure he's acted within that statutory authority," he said.

A letter to the White House signed by 136 of the nation's top law professors and legal scholars concluded that Obama acted within his legal authority when he used an executive order to create immigration protections.

"It is our considered view that the expansion of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals and establishment of the Deferred Action for Parental Accountability programs are within the legal authority of the executive branch of the government of the United States," the professors wrote in a letter dated Nov. 25.

In a letter to the chairmen and ranking members of the Senate and House judiciary committees, the former general counsels of the Immigration and Naturalization Service took no position on the policy judgments but wrote "we have all studied the relevant legal parameters and wish to express our collective view that the president’s actions are well within his legal authority."

Reyes, in his statement, notes the president's powers are limited by Congress' exclusive authority.

"While people of goodwill can debate the merits of his policy, even the president has acknowledged that he is not above the law," Reyes wrote.

Wheelwright said debating about the process is fair game for political discourse.

"It's a fair discussion to have, 'Should the president do this?' Reasonable minds can differ on this point.

"At some point, we have to advance the discussion how we're going to solve this problem. All I hear is people complaining about process and they're not providing any solutions," he said.

On this point, Reyes concurs.

"We need solutions from Congress. The president is not the only one frustrated by Congress’ impasse on this issue."

Email: marjorie@deseretnews.com

Related topics