Tomorrow morning in Rayburn 2141, the House Judiciary Committee will be holding a hearing about President Obama’s lawless decision to rewrite the immigration laws because he couldn’t get the legislation he wanted. The hearing looks like it will be an interesting and intelligent discussion about the legal merits (or demerits, in this case) of the President’s program. I will be live-tweeting the event (is there any other kind of tweeting?) under the hashtag #executiveoverreach.

The committee will hear from Nevada AG Adam Laxalt, who courageously joined the multistate immigration lawsuit despite Nevada Governor Sandoval’s opposition. As he explains, the lawsuit isn’t really about immigration at all. Rather, it’s about legality: the President’s unilateral attempt to “change the law” (as the President described it), his refusal to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and his bypassing of the federal Administrative Procedure Act.

Law professor Josh Blackman will give a scholarly analysis of the Constitution’s separation of powers and how the President’s new immigration program violates that separation. Since the policy expressed in the new program is contrary to the policy established by Congress in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), Congress has not previously acquiesced to deferred action, notwithstanding the claims of President Obama’s Office of Legal Counsel to the contrary.

Law professor Elizabeth Price Foley will delve into the details of immigration law, focusing on three specific aspects of the President’s program. The first is status alteration, that is, they are no longer “deportable” within the meaning of the statute for three years. The second is remedy alteration, which is the Administration’s conferral of deferred action, despite its never having been authorized by Congress for this class of immigrants. Third, the program confers benefits to illegal immigrants because the granting of work authorization under the INA triggers eligibility for a wide variety of government programs.

The contrarian on the panel is law professor Stephen Legomsky, who will be defending the legality of President Obama’s action. Professor Legomsky focuses on the constitutional issue, while also attacking a recent decision by a federal district court judge who enjoined the implementation of the program.