Obama’s speech on November 20, when he announced his executive actions regarding immigration laws in our country, practically dared his political opponents to do something about it.

Twenty-five states are answering the call. They’ve filed a lawsuit against Obama for his illegal actions, specifically for violating the clause in his Constitutional job description: “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

Violating the governing document of the land isn’t the President’s only offense. They say his actions are “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and were issued without regulatory authority or the required notice and opportunity for public comment.”

The claim has further grounds in the skyrocketing costs states will incur to enforce Obama’s mandate.

The lawsuit (Texas v. U.S., filed in the Southern District of Texas) was filed December 3, and on Christmas Eve the Department of Justice filed a response saying the states had no right to sue under that clause and couldn’t prove they were being harmed. They said “that the ‘deferred action’ on the immigration status of illegal aliens implemented by Homeland Security is an unreviewable exercise of enforcement discretion.”

The report also accused the states of trying to usurp the “sovereign prerogative of the federal government.” That one they almost got right. When the federal government oversteps its bounds, it is the states’ job to bring them back in line.

Twelve other states filed a legal brief supporting the President’s authority and claiming the new policy will help, not hurt their states. Despite the arguments to dismiss the suit, U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen scheduled a hearing for this week.

Executive power has been growing far beyond its intended scope for decades. Half of the United States are standing up to say: “no more!”