In December, 4 governors and 14 states filed suit, requesting a preliminary injunction from President Obama’s executive overreach. Lead by then Texas AG (now Governor) Abbott, the complaint stated, “This lawsuit is not about immigration. It is about the rule of law, presidential power, and the structural limits of the U.S. Constitution.”

The Abbott lead complaint cited numerous damning examples of the President’s insistence on circumventing Congress, beginning with the his most recent venture in bypassing Congress to unilaterally implement immigration reform:

“On November 20, 2014, the President of the United States announced that he would unilaterally suspend the immigration laws as applied to 4 million of the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States. The President candidly admitted that, in so doing, he unilaterally rewrote the law: “What you’re not paying attention to is, I just took an action to change the law.”

Equipped with reinforcements, House Republicans will debate a Department of Homeland Security (the agency responsible for immigration) appropriation bill Wednesday that if passed with the current amendments, would obliterate Obama’s immigration executive overreach. Disarming the President’s immigration action through funding was the brain child of Rep. Price.

Now somewhat inaccurately dubbed “Obama’s amnesty,” the President’s latest and perhaps most blatant executive sidestep would allow approximately 4.4 million aliens temporary deferral. Aliens would be required to register, prove qualification, pass background checks, and satisfy biometric appointments before being granted work authorization. Meeting these legal tests, they would be eligible for an initial three-year temporary work authorization.

To the rescue with an amicus curiae brief, 12 states plus D.C. are out to defend the President’s immigration power grab. “The Plaintiffs in this case have painted a distorted picture of the impacts of the federal government’s recent immigration directives. In reality, those directives will substantially benefit states—not harm them,” it reads.

“The truth is that the directives will substantially benefit states, will further the public interest, and are well within the President’s broad authority to enforce immigration law,” the brief insists.

Abbott et al smartly targeted executive overreach over the merits of Obama’s immigration policy. Meanwhile, the amicus curiae questions the standing of the complaint and then prattles on about the supposed economic benefits if immigrant influx by citing the Center for American Progress. If states benefit economically, then there’s no irreparable injury, the logic goes.

While things heat up in the court room, Congress prepares for an immigration war of their own.

Follow Kemberlee Kaye on Twitter