More than a hundred Republican lawmakers, including two presidential hopefuls, have signed an amicus brief joining the 26 states and state officials suing the Obama administration over the president's executive orders on immigration.

The 33-page amicus brief, filed on May 11, adds the names of 113 Republican lawmakers from the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives who oppose the federal government's orders providing some relief for undocumented immigrants.

Among those lawmakers are Sens. Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, who are running for president in 2016. Sen. Rand Paul has not signed the amicus brief and neither has Sen. Lindsey Graham, who said may run.

Sen. Rubio previously deemed DACA important but "it is going to have to end. It can't be the permanent policy of the United States..."

The 26 plaintiffs include the states of Texas, Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, South Carolina, South Dakota, North Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Ohio, Oklahoma, Florida, Arizona, Arkansas, Nevada, and Tennessee.

The GOP lawmakers support the lawsuit, which states the administration acted above the U.S. Constitution to pass executive orders that shielded certain undocumented immigrants.

President Obama announced these executive actions in November of last year, protecting the undocumented parents of citizens and residents and expanding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program to include recent arrivals and those over 30.

Republicans have vehemently opposed the executive actions, which the president said he enacted because of Congress' inaction on immigration reform.

The amicus brief, filed by American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), a conservative Christian organization, argues the orders violate the Constitution. It comes after a Texas district court judge blocked the president's executive orders. Now, the decision rests with the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which have heard arguments for and against the executive orders but have yet to make a decision.

The amicus brief is meant to express support for the Texas decision against the president's executive actions.

"The Constitution vested in Congress the exclusive authority to make law and set immigration policies. Congress has created a comprehensive immigration scheme ... but the class identified by the DHS directive for categorical relief is unsupported by this scheme," the brief argues. "Moreover, the DHS directive, by the admission of the President, changes the law and sets a new policy, exceeding the Executive's constitutional authority and disrupting the delicate balance of powers."

However, other groups have filed amicus briefs in favor of the president's executive orders. Some of these groups include 15 states and the District of Columbia; 73 majors and county officials from 27 states; and 181 members of Congress.

One of the briefs, filed by a group if immigrant advocacy groups, labor unions and civil rights groups like the American Immigration Council, explains why the appeals court should side with the government.

While the amicus brief filed by the ACLJ and the 113 GOP lawmakers focuses on legalities, emphasizing the president acted unlawfully by legislating without Congress as well as refusing to enforce immigration laws, the amicus brief from the American Immigration Council, et al., focuses on the negative aspects of blocking the orders.

The brief explains how blocking the president's executive orders would hinder the economy, depriving it of taxpayers as well as a legal working force. Citing various think tanks, the brief notes more than $2 billion could be earned the first couple of years through the newly legalized immigrants. The amicus brief also added that hundreds of thousands of families would suffer negatively from a reversal.

In its one legal argument in favor of the order and against the Texas district court decision, the amicus brief denies the court's statement saying the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) "[n]o DACA application that has met the criteria has been denied based on an exercise of individualized discretion."

The brief cites many instances in which the DHS rejected DACA applicants.

"The record further shows that DACA requests have been denied in the exercise of discretion based on the agency's belief that the applicant 'submitted false statements or attempted to commit fraud in a prior application or petition ... falsely claimed to be a U.S. citizen and had prior removals' as well as other factors not specified in the DACA guidelines," the brief explains.

The amicus brief against the administration explains the court should uphold the Texas decision because "the DHS directive violates the Constitution, impermissibly disrupts the separation of powers, and amounts to an abdication of the Executive's constitutional and statutory duties."

They conclude the president enacted unlawful laws and that Congress's inaction did not allow the executive to legislate in its stead.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has not said when it will decide on the case and so the lives of millions of immigrants remain in limbo.