Another Hit: Court upholds injunction

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by major56, Nov 10, 2015.

Loading...
  1. major56

    major56 Active Member

    Obama Immigration Initiative Takes Another Hit: Court upholds injunction blocking administration’s plan to protect millions from deportation
    Obama Immigration Initiative Takes Another Hit - WSJ

    WSJ (Updated Nov. 9, 2015 11:32 p.m. ET)
    By
    Miguel Bustillo And
    Tamara Audi
    Updated Nov. 9, 2015 11:32 p.m. ET
    260 COMMENTS Obama Immigration Initiative Takes Another Hit - WSJ

    For readers w/o WSJ online access; here's the article:

    A federal appeals court Monday upheld a lower court’s ruling blocking the Obama administration’s plans to defer deportations for more than four million undocumented immigrants.

    The 2-1 decision by a three-judge panel of the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholds an injunction by a Texas federal judge that has blocked President Barack Obama’s 2014 immigration initiative, after leaders from 26 states challenged its legality.

    The appeals-court ruling was widely anticipated, after a three-judge panel of the same court rejected the Obama administration arguments to quickly lift the injunction in May. But it paves the way for a potential appeal of the matter to the U.S. Supreme Court—and all but ensures that the immigration initiative will remained mired in a legal dispute through most, if not all, of Mr. Obama’s term in office.

    Leaders from Texas and 25 other largely Republican states have argued that Mr. Obama’s executive immigration action represented an unconstitutional overreach of presidential power because it took place without approval from Congress.

    The Justice Department has countered that the president was within his authority, and leaders in more than a dozen mostly Democratic states, as well as dozens of cities including Los Angeles and New York, have filed briefs supporting the administration.

    But U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen, based in Brownsville, Texas, temporarily blocked the immigration plan in February, pending a full trial on the matter, and it has been effectively stalled since.

    The ruling blocked a new program called Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, or DAPA, which would apply to an estimated four million people who have been in the country since 2010 and have a child who is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident.

    It also halted an expansion of an existing 2012 program called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, which allows relief from deportation for people brought to the U.S. as children.

    On Monday, following oral arguments before the court in July, the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court affirmed Judge Hanen’s injunction, finding that the states had legal standing to challenge the matter, an issue that has been disputed in the case, and that the states had a “substantial likelihood of success” based on the merits of their case.

    Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton praised the ruling Monday, saying it demonstrated the strength of the states’ arguments that Mr. Obama’s actions were unlawful.

    “Today, the Fifth Circuit asserted that the separation of powers remains the law of the land, and the president must follow the rule of law, just like everybody else,” Mr. Paxton said. “Throughout this process, the Obama administration has aggressively disregarded the constitutional limits on executive power.”

    A spokesman for the U.S. Department of Justice said it “is committed to taking steps that will resolve the immigration litigation as quickly as possible in order to allow DHS to bring greater accountability to our immigration system by prioritizing the removal of the worst offenders, not people who have long ties to the United States and who are raising American children.”

    The spokesman added the Justice Department “is reviewing the opinion to determine how best to proceed to accomplish that goal.”

    The government is working against the clock and will have to act quickly to have a chance at getting the case heard in the current term, which runs until the end of June 2016. The court, which schedules arguments in appeals from October to April each term, needs to receive the appeal and get briefs from both sides before deciding whether to accept the case. Any delay would likely push the case into the next term and past the presidential election.

    Immigration advocates said they were disappointed but not surprised by the ruling, and pressed the Obama administration to swiftly appeal to the Supreme Court.

    “We ask Obama to appeal to the Supreme Court immediately!” tweeted Marielena Hincapie, the executive director of the National Immigration Law Center, an immigration rights group. She added that a potential silver lining is that the Supreme Court could now rule by June of 2016.
     
  2. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator

    Regardless of what you think of the illegal immigration issue, why would any political leader at the state level endorse this kind of dictatorial action via Executive Order that is so blatantly in violation of the Constitution?

    I don't care what the issue is, or which side of it your opinion falls, it's both dangerous and chilling whenever the President tries to bypass Congress with the sweep of a pen. The supporters of this apparently haven't thought it through, because if it's allowed to stand, it's a sword/pen that cuts both ways.
     
  3. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    Well, he also has a phone.

    But seriously, you do have a point, and I say that as someone who favors unfettered immigration. But this isn't new. Policymakers in both parties have shown they're happy to use powers (executive and otherwise) expanded by predecessors from the other major party regardless of having railed against such expansion at the time. Like Jefferson said, "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground."
     
  4. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator

    Exactly, but this President has taken things beyond the extreme, he essentially wants to have sole decision-making power about a major issue facing the country.

    I'm a proponent of trashing the US Tax Code and adopting a flat tax, but I'd be horrified if a future President tried to go ignore Congress and implement it on his own via Executive Order. That's what the supporters of this President don't seem to understand; that it's plain bad for the country and democracy that it's even being tried, regardless of the issue and what side you happen to fall on.
     
  5. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    It's not over. They expected to lose in the 5th Circuit, a particularly conservative court.

    Congress could put this all away if they'd just pass immigration reform. But the GOP leadership in the House has refused to call a vote on it, even though it has already passed in the Senate.

    We'll see what the Supreme Court says. I'm all in favor of checking the powers of the President. (It would have been nice regarding the Gulf War, for example.) I'm not sure if the President is over the line on this one, though.
     
  6. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator

    If you mean the 1990-91 Gulf War, I think that was a perfect example of how a use of force should be handled. Bush 41 got Congressional approval, went in and accomplished exactly what he set out to do (liberate Kuwait), and got out.

    There was a vocal faction that wanted us to keep going into Baghdad, but that wasn't included in the Congressional authorization, and considering I would have been one of the soldiers going, I'm glad it ended how/when it did. I came home in one piece, and that was fine with me. :smokin:
     
  7. AV8R

    AV8R Active Member

    Good gravy, Rich. All of the world's problems are not due to the GOP.
     
  8. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    No one said that.
     

Share This Page