BREAKING: Supreme Court Splits On Immigration, Voiding Obama Protection For Millions [VIDEO]

UPDATE: The U.S. Supreme Court deadlocked Thursday on an immigration plan implemented by President Obama that had shielded millions of undocumented immigrants and granted them the right to work legally in the United States.

The 4-4 vote leaves a lower court's ruling in place, ending the plan Obama put into place by executive action after Congress failed, yet again, to pass a comprehensive immigration bill.

In a press conference, President Barack Obama expressed his disappointment at the SCOTUS deadlock that failed to yield a ruling.

"For more than two centuries, welcoming wave after wave of immigrants has kept us youthful and dynamic and entrepreneurial; it has shaped our character and it has made us stronger," the president said. "But for more than two decades now, our immigration system, everybody acknowledges, has been broken. And the fact the Supreme Court wasn't able to issue a decision today doesn't just set the system back even further, it takes us further from the country we aspire to be."

With the end of his second term in office on the horizon, Obama expressed frustration at today's SCOTUS action (or inaction), coming at a time when his nominee to fill the vacancy on the court has been blocked and delayed by Republicans.

"Today's decision is frustrating to those who seek to grow our economy and bring rationality to our immigration system and to allow people to come out of their shadows and left this perpetual cloud on them," Obama said. "I think it is heartbreaking for the millions of immigrants who made their lives here, who've raised families here, who hoped for the opportunity to work, pay taxes, serve in the military and more fully contribute to this country we all love in a more open way."

Five million unauthorized immigrants — all of them parents of citizens or of lawful permanent residents — were eligible to apply for a program called Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, or DAPA. That program would spare them from deportation and provide them with work permits.

Obama's executive action in trying to solve the status of millions of immigrants had been stridently opposed by Republicans, including Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, who categorized the president's action as ruling by fiat. GOP opponents of the move took to social media to express their elation at the Supreme Court's deadlock that effectively leaves millions of immigrants in limbo.

“Today’s decision keeps in place what we have maintained from the very start: one person, even a president, cannot unilaterally change the law," Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a press release. "This is a major setback to President Obama’s attempts to expand executive power, and a victory for those who believe in the separation of powers and the rule of law.”

Abbott, too, reacted with glee while repeating his accusations that Obama acted more like a monarch than a president in issuing an executive action — despite it being a tactic that's often been used by former presidents in times of Congressional inaction on matters of national importance.

“The action taken by the President was an unauthorized abuse of presidential power that trampled the Constitution, and the Supreme Court rightly denied the President the ability to grant amnesty contrary to immigration laws," Abbott said in a statement. "As the President himself said, he is not a king who can unilaterally change and write immigration laws. Today's ruling is also a victory for all law-abiding Americans—including the millions of immigrants who came to America following the rule of law."

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan — on the heels of having endured an unprecedented, 26-hour sit-in by Democrats protesting the GOP majority's inaction on helping enact gun control legislation — issued a statement saying the court's ruling on immigration bolsters the idea that Congress, not the president, can enact laws.

"Today, Article I of the Constitution was vindicated. The Supreme Court's ruling makes the president's executive action on immigration null and void," Ryan said in his statement. "The Constitution is clear: The president is not permitted to write laws — only Congress is. This is another major victory in our fight to restore the separation of powers."

For Democrats, the decision is, naturally, a disappointment. But progressives view the issue as a cause to continue energizing their base. Up until Obama tried to fix the broken immigration system that forced millions into the shadows of society, Democrats had bemoaned the inaction of Congress to take on the issue.

The glimmer of hope for them in the wake of today's SCOTUS action: It's more of an indecision rather than a precedent-setting ruling, which means the immigration issue could be revisited down the road — although all but likely not during Obama's presidency.

Still, presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton blasted the SCOTUS impasse, reiterating a belief among progressives that Obama acted well within his discretion in taking executive action on the measure.

"Today’s deadlocked decision from the Supreme Court is unacceptable, and show us all just how high the stakes are in this election," Clinton said in a statement. "As I have consistently said, I believe that President Obama acted well within his constitutional and legal authority in issuing the DAPA and DACA executive actions. These are our friends and family members; neighbors and classmates; DREAMers and parents of Americans and lawful permanent residents. They enrich our communities and contribute to our economy every day. We should be doing everything possible under the law to provide them relief from the specter of deportation."

U.S. Rep. Joaquin Castro of Texas echoed the sentiment, tweeting that today's SCOTUS decision isn't the death knell for DAPA nor does it affect another program intended for immigrant children — Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.

"Today’s Supreme Court ruling is a setback, but not the end of the road for #DAPA and expanded #DACA," Castro said.

Clinton also threaded the development in political terms while in the midst of a spirited campaign with Republican Donald Trump for the presidency. Trump launched his campaign by calling immigrants "rapists" and "criminals," earning contempt from Democrats but resonance with much of his political base.

Trump had vowed to reverse Obama's executive action on immigration should he become president. He's also vowed to begin mass deportation of some 11 million immigrants if he were to take office.

"This decision is also a stark reminder of the harm Donald Trump would do to our families, our communities, and our country," Clinton said in her statement. "Trump has pledged to repeal President Obama’s executive actions on his first day in office. He has called Mexican immigrants 'rapists' and 'murderers.' He has called for creating a deportation force” to tear 11 million people away from their families and their homes."

Trump, a prolific tweeter in attacking his political adversaries, weighed in on the matter by about 3 p.m. CST, applauding the SCOTUS deadlock that prevented a ruling.

"Today's 4-4 Supreme Court ruling has blocked one of the most unconstitutional actions ever undertaken by a President," Trump said. "The executive amnesty from President Obama wiped away the immigration rules written by Congress, giving work permits and entitlement benefits to people illegally in the country."

Like Clinton, Trump also used the court's action as a bellwether of the stakes in the presidential campaign: "The election, and the Supreme Court appointments that come with it will decide whether or not we have a border and, hence, a country," the reality-television-star-turned-candidate said. "Clinton has pledged to expand Obama's executive amnesty, hurting poor African-American and Hispanic workers by giving away their jobs and federal resources to illegal immigrant labor – while making us all less safe."

In reacting to the SCOTUS action, he altered his oft-repeated campaign mantra: "It is time to protect our country and Make America Safe Again and Great Again for everyone."

The decision is a blow to Obama's legacy-building efforts as he winds down his presidency. The high court's indecision also is sure to cement the pejorative "deporter-in-chief" sobriquet with which his detractors have labeled him given the high level of deportations that have taken place under his administration — higher, even, than those of his GOP predecessor.

In his press conference expressing his frustration at the SCOTUS action on DAPA, Obama referenced his administration's immigration actions as indicative of his efforts to hammer out a comprehensive-style reform that doesn't grant blanket asylum as his critics have charged.

"Since I took office, we've deployed more border agents and technology to our southern border than ever before," Obama said. "That has helped cut illegal border crossings to their lowest levels since the 1970s; it should have paved the way for comprehensive immigration reform."

His immigration crackdown was meant to set the stage for bipartisan support for comprehensive reform, Obama said.

"And, in fact, as many of you know, it nearly did," Obama reminded. "Nearly 70 Democrats and Republicans in the Senate came together to pass a smart, common sense bill that would've doubled the border patrol and offered undocumented immigrants a pathway to earn citizenship if they paid a fine, paid their taxes and played by the rules."

The focus of deportation would be on the criminal element among the immigrant segment rather than people who are simply here to work and raise their families deemed a "low-priority" focus of potential deportation action.

But then, the bill died in the House. "Unfortunately, representatives in the House of Representatives refused to allow a simple yes or not vote on that bill," Obama said. "So I was left with little choice but to take steps within my existing authority to make our immigration system smarter, fairer and more just."

The White House released a video of Obama's statement in the wake of today's SCOTUS decision. His remarks begin at 19:10 below:

The case's road to the Supreme Court began with conservatives in GOP-led Texas filing suit to prevent DAPA’s passage, leading a 26-state coalition to stop its implementation. By February, DAPA opponents scored their first victory: The granting of a preliminary injunction that effectively halted its passage. The favorable ruling for GOP opponents was granted by U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen, a Republican appointee with a history of anti-immigration rulings.

A week after the ruling, on Feb. 23, the U.S. government asked the court to lift the injunction as it filed an appeal to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. Hanen denied the request.

In the New Orleans appeals court, the Obama administration’s motion for a stay was denied. A request to allow DAPA to be implemented in states except Texas while the case was being appealed also was denied. Ultimately, the proposed executive action was found to run counter to the Administrative Procedure Act and Immigration and Nationality Act — both antithetical to DAPA passage, appeals judges wrote in their opinion.

In November 2015, the U.S. Justice Department announced it would ask the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse that decision. As the case meandered its way to the nation’s highest court, several dynamics changed that could have informed the ruling. Foremost: The death of conservative justice Antonin Scalia, which means the case was in the hands of eight jurists that could have led to a divided court. In such as case, the ruling of the Fifth Circuit would be affirmed.

Up until Texas opposition, the specter of DAPA had buoyed the hopes of millions of immigrants, many of whom are living in the shadows of society. In the state’s capital, immigration advocates regularly stage rallies in support of immigration reform, including one coinciding with the week of St. Valentine’s Day last year during which immigrants delivered to the governor’s mansion gates an oversize simulation of a greeting card but representing a broken heart.

Virginia Segura and her husband had looked forward to applying for DAPA until Texas stepped in. Now, her future — and that of her family — hangs in the balance. "We have a 4-year-old son, and he needs to be with me and his father always," she said at the February rally. "My son was born in this country. He has a right to be with his parents.”