U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen delivered a major blow to President Barack Obama’s unilateral executive action on immigration with a preliminary injunction in Brownsville, Texas. The case involves a challenge by 26 states and, to succeed, the states had to meet a high standard that they were likely to prevail on the merits in the case. Hanen found that, absent an order, the states will “suffer irreparable harm in this case.” The ruling sets up an appeal that could move the case more rapidly through the system in yet another challenge to the President’s unilateral actions. [For the purposes of full disclosure, I have previously testified against the President’s unilateral actions and I am currently serving as lead counsel to the House of Representatives in its challenge to such actions taken with regard to the Affordable Care Act.]
The case enjoins some provisions scheduled to take effect this week. For example, Obama ordered the expansion of a program that to protect young immigrants from deportation if they were brought to the U.S. illegally as children. The case also deals with an order extending deportation protections to parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents who have been in the country for some years.
Judge Hanen wrote that “The court finds that the government’s failure to secure the border has exacerbated illegal immigration into this country. . . Further, the record supports the finding that this lack of enforcement, combined with the country’s high rate of illegal immigration, significantly drains the states’ resources.”
Hanen has previously expressed frustration with the lack of border and immigration enforcement. In December 2013, he handled an immigration smuggling case where he expressed dismay over the Administration essentially facilitating conspiracies to violate federal law by reunited families and not deporting violators. In one case involving the sentencing of a smuggler, Hanen lashed out at the federal government and noted that “[i]nstead of arresting (the child’s mother) for instigating the conspiracy to violate our border security laws, the (Homeland Security Department) delivered the child to her — thus successfully completing the mission of the criminal conspiracy.” Hanen added “DHS has simply chosen not to enforce the United States’ border security laws.”
The Justice Department always has the advantage in such appeals given past cases deferring to the Executive Branch on immigration, though the opinion below raises some significant concerns.
The case will now likely go to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans (where I clerked after law school).
Here is the lengthy opinion: Immigration Opinion
Source: NY Times
calypso, He’s a bomb thrower. I usually just ignore his bombs. He doesn’t stick around long. The press could use some of the skepticism they had for the Bush WH legal memos involving waterboarding.
DBQ, Thanks for the real world example. You know there are many more.
Owns and operates…..present tense on the agri business.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/gop-lawsuit-stop-obama-immigration-actions
Interesting. So they got this judge previously hostile to DHS under Obama to block his order. Doesn’t sound like it has much chance going forward, though.
Here is an interesting tidbit from California on the illegal alien mess and shows the law of unintended consequences in action. Anecdote to follow:
#1) It is STILL an illegal act to hire illegal aliens. http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/penalties-for-employers-hiring-illegal-immigrants.html Despite what Obama thinks he can do with his pen, this law still stands as of now…..I believe.
For those who don’t want to read at the link:
What Are the Penalties For Hiring An Illegal Immigrant?
For first offenders, there is a $250-$2,000 fine per illegal employee.
For a second offense, the fine is $2,000-$5,000 per illegal employee.
For employers who have been convicted of hiring illegal immigrants more than twice, the fine can range from $3000-$10,000 per employee. If the employer demonstrates a pervasive pattern of knowingly employing illegal immigrants, he or she could face additional fines, and up to six months in jail.
This does not include “harboring” illegal immigrants, or knowingly employing ten or more illegal immigrants in one year. Harboring an illegal immigrant can lead to ten years of prison time.
Additionally, under the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) act, employers hiring illegal immigrants have been sued, resulting in large settlements. The lawfully documented workers of the Zirkle Fruit Company recently settled a class action lawsuit brought under RICO. The suit alleged that their employer knowingly hired undocumented workers, driving down their wages.
#2) It also may still be an additional law on the books in California (not sure if it was rescinded or just not enforced) that a company can sue another company for damages if they knowingly are hiring illegals for the same reasons as the Zirkle Fruit workers did.
#3) California…..or just Moonbeam Brown….has decided that the millions of illegals in our state can now get driver’s licenses. The license will be marked with a special designation to indicate the illegal status as per Federal Law Federal law requires that the licenses clearly indicate that the driver is undocumented.
Now the anecdote
We have a friend whose daughter has a high powered accounting firm for many large agri businesses, vineyards, ranches etc in the mid California area. San Luis Obisbpo, Santa Barbara and inland. In addition her husband’s family owns and operated huge agri businesses themselves.
In light of the above, the owners and managers of these businesses, have informed their employees, many of whom they suspect are not legal, but who have supplied SSN’s and other identification that IF they get a California Illegal Alien Driver’s License…..they, the employers, will have to let them go, fire their @sses. “Even though you, Luis, have been a good employee for 10 years, once it is confirmed by the State of California and your new shiny driver’s license that you are illegal, I will be subject to the laws, fines and possibly jail time….therefore I must let you go………Adios”
The law of unintended consequences.
Oddly, I think I understand Obama as being a Pollyanna like I must appear to some to be myself. Our difference is that I recognize our threats, while I think Obama is in full denial mode. He thinks he can out wait our enemies, while our enemies know they can out wait us (seriously, rag tag forces in cheap pick up trucks called “tacticals” because of crew served guns mounted thereon can succeed against our armored might?) ….and have proven it recently. Obama would make a terrible poker player…he has more “tells” than the rankest amateur in the game. Don’t hate him for it, I just don’t trust him to make sound decisions…primarily because he has no negotiation skills that I’ve been able to detect. When one thinks they know it all, it isn’t long before it is demonstrated they know nothing.
I realize this is couched as a quote of the Press Secretary, but the AP’s unabashed bias, mindlessly repeated in newspapers and blogs across the country, never fails to amaze me: “The Justice Department, legal scholars, immigration experts and the federal district court in Washington have determined that Obama’s actions are well within his legal authority, the White House said.”
Good bye, Rule of Law, we hardly knew you.
calypso, Astounds me with his view of so called “bias” in the AP report. He seems to think that reporting the FACT that many legal authorities think that Obama has the right to do what he did is bias. The only alternative is to do a FAUX news report which refuses to allow the other side any say at all. Or they could simply LIE that NO legal scholars or other qualified observers agree with Obama. In calypso world only one side has any legitimacy to be reported. The “false” side has NO right to be heard at all. Goodbye freedom of the press and real journalism. We could then have just one news source which is controlled by him and his cohorts. So much for democracy and freedom too. It is time for such folks to leave this blog and our country and find a more congenial place to spew their contempt for us and our traditions.
While I support Obama on most things, this is one area in which it is obvious to me that it is a serious overreach on his part. As Bailers pointed out it is one thing to not go after illegals under prosecutorial discretion, but wildly illegal to grant legal status unilaterally and give SS numbers in violation of the law. They can do that for those illegals who have a valid claim of sanctuary or are needed witnesses to crime and need legal status to testify in court,. Absent those factors, it is BIG leap to grant such things to a whole class of people without authorization from Congress.
The only legal way for them to do this is to hold hearings for each individual case, and THEN grant them SS numbers under existing law. It is a mystery to me to see why they claim to have the ability to unilaterally craft law on their own.
Pogo, I have said previously, there will be some scandalous stuff discovered AFTER Obama is gone. IRS and NSA abuses will top the list. He’s a Chicago politician, plain and simple. Those 2 powerful resources just could not go unused.
Just think of all the wasted tax dollars spent in government fighting government in court. I wish people would just agree on the principle of small limited central government with the governments more answerable to the people having more power.
The dark hedonist multicultural invasion, theft, subterfuge, and subversion of white protestant christian America must be stopped one way or the other or all will be lost to the tyranny of the Zionist and Islamic secular pagan or relativistic heathen elitist 1%…
Paul C. Schulte
It will be interesting to see the Obama administration try to defend itself.
————————-
I don’t know about the administration, but supporters are already saying how DOJ and immigration experts have found this to be legal. Seriously that’s the defense. Point out that DOJ also found torture, rendition, and a whole bunch of other illegal things legal and you’ll be told you’re off topic. But I digress.
I think the nail in the coffin here isn’t going to be the deferment in and of itself. It’s the creation of a registration program, along with other benefits and rights of legal immigration, where there is not Congressional action to do so. These programs on their face appear to be a legal immigration or amnesty program. Simply put, the administration created a law on their own. That cannot stand. Prosecutorial discretion is saying we aren’t going to go after the “dreamers” because there’s more pressing cases to work. But that doesn’t extend to then extending legal rights to them.
I expect to hear much more about how overturning this executive order will affect people than the legality of it in the media over the next 1-2 years.
Also time for the IRS to investigate U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen.
Time for a sad-faced Obama selfie.
Paul,
A legal scholar gave us Obamacare, so go figure.
NY Times could gain some credibility if it hired Brian Williams as its Editor-in-Chief.
Reblogged this on BLOGGING BAD w/Gunny G ~ "CLINGERS of AMERICA!".
Interestingly, the NY Times article on this ruling paints Judge Hanen as an out-of-touch anti-Obama crusader; they characterize him as a bit of a whacko.
“Some legal scholars said any order by Judge Hanen to halt the president’s actions would be quickly suspended by the [US] Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans.”
Steve H – some legal scholars thought Obamacare would be overruled.
It will be interesting to see the Obama administration try to defend itself.
Can this be read like a mathematics problem where all sorts of variables are thrown in that have nothing to do with figuring out the correct answer? If the correct answer is Rule of Law, what variables can be thrown out?