Milestones in the Supreme Court immigration case(Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday heard arguments in a challenge by 26 states to President Barack Obama’s executive action to defer deportation of certain immigrant children and parents who are in the country illegally. Here is a chronology of the case, United States v. Texas: June 15, 2012 - The Obama administration, through the Department of Homeland Security, initiates the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which suspends deportation for two years for people who entered the country illegally at least five years earlier, before they were age 16, and who were under age 31 as of June 15, 2012. Nov. 20, 2014 - Obama, through unilateral executive action, initiates a new deferred-deportation and work-authorization policy for immigrants whose children are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents and who have been living illegally in the United States since Jan. 1, 2010. These people must pass certain background checks for possible past criminal convictions. The program is called Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA). The Obama administration also expands the earlier DACA program by eliminating the age-31 cap and increasing deferred deportation from two to three years. Dec. 3, 2014 - Texas and other Republican-governed states sue the Democratic Obama administration in U.S. district court in Texas. They assert that Obama’s Nov. 20 executive actions, which bypassed the Republican-led Congress, violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) notice-and-comment requirements for new federal agency rules and violated the U.S. Constitution’s dictate that a president “take care” that laws are “faithfully executed.” In all, 26 of the 50 U.S. states eventually sign on to the lawsuit: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin. Feb. 16, 2015 - U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen in the border city of Brownsville, Texas issues an injunction blocking enforcement of the programs nationwide. The judge says the Obama administration had failed to offer notice and seek comments under the Administrative Procedure Act. Administration lawyers counter that the actions did not arise from official rule-making but rather from Homeland Security Department discretion on deportation priorities. May 26, 2015 - After the administration appeals the judge’s decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, based in New Orleans, upholds Hanen’s injunction, pending an appeal on the merits of the case. Nov. 9, 2015 - The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit rules for Texas and the other states, throwing out Obama’s DAPA and expanded DACA actions because, the court says, they were subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act. Jan. 19, 2016 - The Supreme Court agrees to hear the  administration’s appeal. The justices say they will review the Administrative Procedure Act issue as well as whether the program violates the “take care” mandate. A key question before the justices is whether Texas and the other states even have legal standing to bring the case based on a claim that Obama’s action would cost the states financially in certain public services such as the cost of issuing driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. Feb. 13, 2016 - Justice Antonin Scalia dies, leaving the Supreme Court with only eight members - four liberals and four conservatives - and the possibility of a 4-4 deadlock. Such a split ruling would be a defeat for Obama because it would leave in place the 5th Circuit decision disallowing his executive action. April 18, 2016 - The Supreme Court hears oral arguments in the case United States v. Texas. The justices seem divided along ideological grounds, with liberal justices sounding supportive of Obama’s action and the conservatives sounding skeptical, underscoring the possibility of a 4-4 split. A ruling is expected by the end of June.politicsNews
milestones supreme court immigration case reuters the supreme court monday heard arguments challenge states president barack obama executive action defer deportation certain immigrant children parents country illegally here chronology case united states texas june the obama administration department homeland security initiates deferred action childhood arrivals data program suspends deportation two years people entered country illegally least five years earlier age age june obama unilateral executive action initiates new policy immigrants whose children citizens lawful permanent residents living illegally united states since these people must pass certain background checks possible past criminal convictions the program called deferred action parents americans lawful permanent residents data the obama administration also expands earlier data program eliminating cap increasing deferred deportation two three years texas states sue democratic obama administration district court texas they assert obama executive actions bypassed congress violated administrative procedure act apa requirements new federal agency rules violated constitution dictate president take care laws faithfully in states eventually sign lawsuit alabama arizona arkansas florida georgia idaho indiana kansas louisiana maine michigan mississippi montana nebraska nevada north carolina north dakota ohio oklahoma south carolina south dakota tennessee texas utah west virginia wisconsin district court judge andrew haven border city brownsville texas issues injunction blocking enforcement programs nationwide the judge says obama administration failed offer notice seek comments administrative procedure act administration lawyers counter actions arise official rather homeland security department discretion deportation priorities may after administration appeals judge decision court appeals circuit based new orleans upholds haven injunction pending appeal merits case the court appeals circuit rules texas states throwing obama data expanded data actions court says subject requirements administrative procedure act the supreme court agrees hear administration appeal the justices say review administrative procedure act issue well whether program violates take care mandate a key question justices whether texas states even legal standing bring case based claim obama action would cost states financially certain public services cost issuing driver licenses illegal immigrants justice antonio scale dies leaving supreme court eight members four liberals four conservatives possibility deadlock such split ruling would defeat obama would leave place circuit decision disallowing executive action april the supreme court hears oral arguments case united states texas the justices seem divided along ideological grounds liberal justices sounding supportive obama action conservatives sounding skeptical underscoring possibility split a ruling expected end
Your task is to classify the provided input as real or fake news. Label 0 is meant for fake news, Label 1 is for real news. TEXT: Milestones in the Supreme Court immigration case(Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday heard arguments in a challenge by 26 states to President Barack Obama’s executive action to defer deportation of certain immigrant children and parents who are in the country illegally. Here is a chronology of the case, United States v. Texas: June 15, 2012 - The Obama administration, through the Department of Homeland Security, initiates the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which suspends deportation for two years for people who entered the country illegally at least five years earlier, before they were age 16, and who were under age 31 as of June 15, 2012. Nov. 20, 2014 - Obama, through unilateral executive action, initiates a new deferred-deportation and work-authorization policy for immigrants whose children are U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents and who have been living illegally in the United States since Jan. 1, 2010. These people must pass certain background checks for possible past criminal convictions. The program is called Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA). The Obama administration also expands the earlier DACA program by eliminating the age-31 cap and increasing deferred deportation from two to three years. Dec. 3, 2014 - Texas and other Republican-governed states sue the Democratic Obama administration in U.S. district court in Texas. They assert that Obama’s Nov. 20 executive actions, which bypassed the Republican-led Congress, violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) notice-and-comment requirements for new federal agency rules and violated the U.S. Constitution’s dictate that a president “take care” that laws are “faithfully executed.” In all, 26 of the 50 U.S. states eventually sign on to the lawsuit: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin. Feb. 16, 2015 - U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen in the border city of Brownsville, Texas issues an injunction blocking enforcement of the programs nationwide. The judge says the Obama administration had failed to offer notice and seek comments under the Administrative Procedure Act. Administration lawyers counter that the actions did not arise from official rule-making but rather from Homeland Security Department discretion on deportation priorities. May 26, 2015 - After the administration appeals the judge’s decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, based in New Orleans, upholds Hanen’s injunction, pending an appeal on the merits of the case. Nov. 9, 2015 - The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit rules for Texas and the other states, throwing out Obama’s DAPA and expanded DACA actions because, the court says, they were subject to notice-and-comment requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act. Jan. 19, 2016 - The Supreme Court agrees to hear the  administration’s appeal. The justices say they will review the Administrative Procedure Act issue as well as whether the program violates the “take care” mandate. A key question before the justices is whether Texas and the other states even have legal standing to bring the case based on a claim that Obama’s action would cost the states financially in certain public services such as the cost of issuing driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. Feb. 13, 2016 - Justice Antonin Scalia dies, leaving the Supreme Court with only eight members - four liberals and four conservatives - and the possibility of a 4-4 deadlock. Such a split ruling would be a defeat for Obama because it would leave in place the 5th Circuit decision disallowing his executive action. April 18, 2016 - The Supreme Court hears oral arguments in the case United States v. Texas. The justices seem divided along ideological grounds, with liberal justices sounding supportive of Obama’s action and the conservatives sounding skeptical, underscoring the possibility of a 4-4 split. A ruling is expected by the end of June.politicsNews
Your task is to classify the provided input as real or fake news. Label 0 is meant for fake news, Label 1 is for real news. TEXT: milestones supreme court immigration case reuters the supreme court monday heard arguments challenge states president barack obama executive action defer deportation certain immigrant children parents country illegally here chronology case united states texas june the obama administration department homeland security initiates deferred action childhood arrivals data program suspends deportation two years people entered country illegally least five years earlier age age june obama unilateral executive action initiates new policy immigrants whose children citizens lawful permanent residents living illegally united states since these people must pass certain background checks possible past criminal convictions the program called deferred action parents americans lawful permanent residents data the obama administration also expands earlier data program eliminating cap increasing deferred deportation two three years texas states sue democratic obama administration district court texas they assert obama executive actions bypassed congress violated administrative procedure act apa requirements new federal agency rules violated constitution dictate president take care laws faithfully in states eventually sign lawsuit alabama arizona arkansas florida georgia idaho indiana kansas louisiana maine michigan mississippi montana nebraska nevada north carolina north dakota ohio oklahoma south carolina south dakota tennessee texas utah west virginia wisconsin district court judge andrew haven border city brownsville texas issues injunction blocking enforcement programs nationwide the judge says obama administration failed offer notice seek comments administrative procedure act administration lawyers counter actions arise official rather homeland security department discretion deportation priorities may after administration appeals judge decision court appeals circuit based new orleans upholds haven injunction pending appeal merits case the court appeals circuit rules texas states throwing obama data expanded data actions court says subject requirements administrative procedure act the supreme court agrees hear administration appeal the justices say review administrative procedure act issue well whether program violates take care mandate a key question justices whether texas states even legal standing bring case based claim obama action would cost states financially certain public services cost issuing driver licenses illegal immigrants justice antonio scale dies leaving supreme court eight members four liberals four conservatives possibility deadlock such split ruling would defeat obama would leave place circuit decision disallowing executive action april the supreme court hears oral arguments case united states texas the justices seem divided along ideological grounds liberal justices sounding supportive obama action conservatives sounding skeptical underscoring possibility split a ruling expected end