Texas federal court issues injunction on Obama’s amnesty
But don’t get too excited yet. It’s just one judge in Texas, and it’s sure to be appealed.
However, this illustrates once again how important federal judge appointments are; they can determine the future no matter who a subsequent president may be. The judge in this case was a Bush appointee, and I can almost guarantee that if the decision is later reversed it will be by courts with majority Democratic appointees. Elections matter for a lot of reasons, and one of them is that they determine the makeup of the judiciary that later either upholds or overturns actions of the executive or legislative branches when they are challenged.
The present injunction was granted not on constitutional grounds (on which the judge did not rule one way or the other) but procedural ones:
The basic argument from the states that Hanen favors isn’t one about constitutional improprieties (he doesn’t get to that question, which the states have raised); it’s that the Department of Homeland Security has effectively created a whole new program and procedure without following any of the legally necessary steps. The Obama administration’s use of deferred action amounts to new rulemaking, Hanen suggests, because there’s so little evidence that the system, based on DACA, involves case-by-case discretion, as the feds claim it does.
More here from the decision itself:
The DHS cannot reasonably claim that, under a general delegation to establish enforcement policies, it can establish a blanket policy of non-enforcement that also awards legal presence and benefits to otherwise removable aliens. As a general matter of statutory interpretation, if Congress intended to confer that kind of discretion…to apply to all of its mandates under these statutes, there would have been no need to expressly and specifically confer discretion in only a few provisions…
…This Court finds that DAPA does not simply constitute inadequate enforcement [which would most likely not be reviewable, according to Heckler], it is an announced program of non-enforcement of the law that contradicts Congress’ statutory goals…
…The DHS does have discretion in the manner in which it chooses to fulfill the expressed wish of Congress. It cannot, however, enact a program whereby it not only ignores the dictates of Congress, but actively acts to thwart them.
Actually, if you look at Heckler—the case the Court cited as limiting judicial review of administrative non-enforcement questions, and with which I was previously unfamiliar—you will see that in that ruling, which concerned the use of certain drugs for executions rather than anything nearly as sweeping in scope as the current case, the Court listed some important exceptions: [emphasis mine]:
…the presumption of unreviewability [established by the case] is rebuttable where (1) an agency declines to act based “solely” on its belief that it lacks jurisdiction, or (2) where an agency “consciously and expressly” adopts a policy that is so extreme that it represents an abdication of its statutory responsibilities.
Will this new ruling on amnesty matter to the dilemma the current Republican Congress is facing over blocking amnesty funding by tying the question to the DHS funding bill? Perhaps, although it certainly doesn’t eliminate their problem. William A. Jacobson of Legal Insurrection explains what Congress might want to do now:
From a political perspective, if Obama is enjoined from enforcing his immigration executive action, how can Congress fund an illegal act? Or if it were funded, thereby relieving the current continuing resolution stalemate, Obama could not enforce it. Either way, this may provide Congress a way out of the jam just days before the funding deadline.
What this allows Republicans to do, is pass a 30 day spending bill without any limitations on the argument that the immigration plan cannot be acted upon anyway, and wait and see how the courts rule. IF the courts refuse to put the injunction on hold, or if the courts uphold the injunction on the merits, then there is no need to worry about defunding the executive action. If an appeals court reverses, then the Republican leadership can say that it has already been upheld as lawful so there is no legal basis for the claim it is unconstitutional. This could be a victory at least to get over the current impasse, although it may not be a long term solution.
Let’s see if Congress listens to that advice.
[ADDENDUM: Oh, and of course the majority of Americans would blame the GOP for any DHS funding block, not Obama, and feel that a DHS shutdown would be a problem or crisis. The MSM and the Democrats appear to have been very effective in their propaganda of glossing over the fact that it is the Democrats who would actually be blocking the DHS funding. I’d like to see how the questions were framed in the poll—this can greatly influence results—but I can’t seem to find a link to the actual questions that were asked.
Here is some initial Republican reaction to the federal ruling. I’ll add that if any Republicans think the Democrats will now relent on any aspect of their stand on this, those Republicans are sadly mistaken.
Of course, the entire issue is clouded by the fact that the Republican Party is itself split on the issue of tying DHS funding to amnesty funding, as well as illegal immigration and what to do about it in general. What a mess.]
[ADDENDUM II: A good legal analysis here.]
“However, this illustrates once again how important federal judge appointments are; they can determine the future no matter who a subsequent president may be.”
_______________________________________
Truer words never spoken.
I recall the fiasco caused by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) when he headed up the Judiciary Committee. Very liberal appointees throughout his tenure there.
This decision by the judge in Texas will now send this case to the 5th Circuit in Louisiana.
It’ll be a long time coming.
The “Unconstitutionality Index” is the ratio of regulations issued by agencies compared to legislation passed by Congress and signed into law by the president. The ratio stood at 51 for 2013. That means there were 72 new laws and 3,659 new rules — 51 rules for every law, or a new rule every 2 ½ hours.
The top six federal rulemaking agencies account for 49.3 percent of all federal rules. In 2013, these were the Departments of the Treasury, Commerce, Interior, Health and Human Services, and Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency.
The 2013 Federal Register contains 79,311 pages, the fourth highest ever. The top two all-time totals are 81,405 pages in 2010 and 81,247 in 2011, both under Obama.
GOP majority in senate needs to go to the nuclear option asap. No filibusters on funding bills, just a straight up and down vote. Fight fire with fire and treat the dem minority just like they treated the gop minority. Rush through a funding bill preventing dhs from implementing the messiah’s executive amnesty. Put it on the desk where he keeps his pen and phone and dare him to veto. When he vetoes send it back to him.
I think Jennifer Rubin is on the mark here — Republicans should stop putting themselves into lose-lose propositions:
parker,
You had me at “GOP majority”.
neo-neocon, are you one of those wascally adults jumping out of your window into the snow drifts?
If so, you have a good time. You go, girl….And to hell with your mayor:
_______________________________________
Things have gotten so bad that Boston Mayor Marty Walsh was forced to deliver some real talk to the citizenry – specifically warning the knuckleheads who have been jumping out of their windows and into the snow to cut it out.
What he said:
“I’m asking people to stop their nonsense right now. These are adults jumping out windows,” Walsh said on Monday, according to the Boston Herald. “It’s a foolish thing to do and you could kill yourself.”
What he meant:
DON’T BE IDIOTS, PEOPLE.
To understand why this is even a thing, we turn to Walsh once again. Boston, he noted, has been buried under 96 inches of snow (and counting) so far this winter. The city is just a few inches away from the all-time record – a record that literally no one wants.
(well, except for Global Warming wackos. They want more snow so as to further reconcile that this wacky weather is all explained by weird weather patterns brought about by, you got it, Global Warming. You simply can’t make this stuff up)
I expect the 5th to rescind the TRO, but if they don’t, it will be interesting to see what Obama does then. I expect that he will not appeal to SCOTUS at that point, but will, instead, simply ignore the order.
And I should note that there is no evidence that they will actually obey the order, even with Johnson’s statement. It certainly isn’t out of the realm of possibility that Jeh Johnson is just flat out lying for his boss.
Yancey Ward:
I believe they will obey the order in the sense that they will not set up the benefits (i.e. paperwork, etc.) for them.
They will not be deporting anyone, though. But just failing to deport people is not technically disobeying the order. The order had to do with staying the setting up of the affirmative program to give them official status. That’s my understanding of it, anyway; haven’t read the entire decision, just the summaries.
Yancey Ward:
Why do you say the 5th Court will rescind the Texas Court’s ruling? Take a look at the makeup of the 5th District Court.
This injunction will stand. The way the decision was written it is absolutely bulletproof on appeal.
And who is going to be a plaintiff with standing for the likes of the ACLU to file a case in Boston?
For once, conservatives have outsmarted the Left.
Spotted out there on the internet
(part on-topic but part off-topic) . . .
Dear Mr. Obama:
I’m planning to move my family and extended family into Mexico for my health, and I would like to ask you to assist me. We’re planning to simply walk across the border from the U.S. into Mexico, and we’ll need your help to make a few arrangements. We plan to skip all the legal stuff like visas, passports, immigration quotas and laws. I’m sure they handle those things the same way you do here So, would you mind telling your buddy, the President of Mexico , that I’m on my way over? Please let him know that I will be expecting the following:
1. Free medical care for my entire family.
2. English-speaking Government bureaucrats for all services I might need, whether I use them or not.
3. Please print all Mexican Government forms in English.
4. I want my grand kids to be taught Spanish by English-speaking (bi-lingual) teachers.
5. Tell their schools they need to include classes on American culture and history.
6. I want my grand kids to see the American flag on one of the flag poles at their school.
7. Please plan to feed my grand kids at school for both breakfast and lunch.
8. I will need a local Mexican driver’s license so I can get easy access to government services.
9. I do plan to get a car and drive in Mexico, but I don’t plan to purchase car insurance, and I probably won’t make any special effort to learn local traffic laws.
10. In case one of the Mexican police officers does not get the memo from their president to leave me alone, please be sure that every patrol car has at least one English-speaking officer.
11. I plan to fly the U.S. flag from my house top, put US. flag decals on my car, and have a gigantic celebration on July 4th. I do not want any complaints or negative comments from the locals.
12. I would also like to have a nice job without paying any taxes, or have any labor or tax laws enforced on any business I may start.
13. Please have the president tell all the Mexican people to be extremely nice and never say critical things about me or my family, or about the strain we might place on their economy.
14. I want to receive free food stamps.
15. Naturally, I’ll expect free rent subsidies.
16. I’ll need income tax credits so that although I don’t pay Mexican taxes, I’ll receive money from the government.
17. Please arrange it so that the Mexican Government pays $4,500.00 to help me buy a new car.
18. Oh yes, I almost forgot, please enroll me free into the Mexican Social Security program so that I’ll get a monthly income in retirement.
Doug Baker
“Oh, and of course the majority of Americans would blame the GOP for any DHS funding block, not Obama, and feel that a DHS shutdown would be a problem or crisis. ”
And why shouldn’t they? That’s exactly what the GOP luminaries told the American public when they promised not to shut down the government for any reason. They didn’t just preemptively surrender the power of the purse when they won control of Congress, they preemptively took the blame.
The only clowns I can stand even less than the national GOP leadership are the Democrats.
R’s act and they’ll be blamed.
R’s don’t act and they are blamed.
The logic is inescapable – you act.
Unless….unless you are so cowardly that it is embarrassing.
There are only a handful of Rs worth listening to – the ones with an ounce of courage and principles: Cruz, Palin, etc.
They should be touchstones. Anyone who does not say what they say should be shut off and shut down completely – not worth a bucket of warm you know what as they say.
Headlines from Drudge this morning.
While I am deeply suspect of opinion polls, it is shocking to see this. If you go to the link provided (on Drudge) you see Americans more optimistic about our economic future.
What alternate universe are these people living in?
The left’s ‘Contract on America’ proceeds and all the republicans can do is fume and fluster, while meekly going along.
Without a real change in leadership, we are headed for calamity, yet the majority of the public is catatonic. It is rapidly becoming too late and Obama will have achieved his objectives. America will be fundamentally transformed, for the worse.