The department apologized after the judge accused its lawyers of being unethical.
Last month, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in United States v. Texas, a lawsuit brought by 26 states challenging President Obama's immigration policies. The case deals specifically with the constitutionality of the President's 2014 Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) program.
When I left the court I was more confident than ever that -- even with the court not at full strength -- this was going to be a lopsided victory for the United States and the president.
Spectators at Monday's historic hearing included 6-year-old Sophie Cruz, a U.S. citizen whose parents are undocumented.
Knowing my family members won't get torn from me because of policies like DAPA is motivation to ensure that others can have what I believe is truly the American dream: living safe, healthy, and happy in the country that you love and call home.
But the court should think twice before giving too much weight to what the House has to say on immigration.
They want to remind the justices that constitutional disputes affect real people.
They say it's about the Constitution, not immigration.
Local leaders are coming out against their states' governors over deportation relief.
The justices added an unexpected constitutional wrinkle to the case.