Thread: Court Rules AGAINST Obama Immigration Plan

Appeals Court Rules Against Obama Immigration Plan

by The Associated Press 11/9/15


NEW ORLEANS — President Barack Obama's plan to protect from deportation an estimated 5 million people living in the United States illegally, suffered another setback in court on Monday.

In a 2-1 decision, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans upheld a Texas-based judge's injunction blocking the Obama administration's immigration initiative.

Republicans had criticized the plan as an illegal executive overreach when Obama announced it last November. Twenty-six states challenged the plan in court.

The administration argued that the executive branch was within its rights in deciding to defer deportation of selected groups of immigrants.

Part of the initiative included expansion of a program called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, protecting young immigrants from deportation if they were brought to the U.S. illegally as children.



http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/imm...n-plan-n460331

Monday, November 9, 2015 08:34 PM
By: Newsmax Wires

President Barrack Obama's plan to protect from deportation an estimated 5 million illegal immigrants in the United States has suffered another setback in court.

In a 2-1 decision, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans upheld a Texas-based judge's injunction blocking the Obama administration's immigration initiative that would use a series of executive actions to give them quasi-legal status and work permits

Republicans had criticized the plan as an illegal executive overreach when Obama announced it last November. Twenty-six states challenged the plan in court.

The administration argued that the executive branch was within its rights in deciding to defer deportation of selected groups of immigrants.

Part of the initiative included expansion of a program called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, protecting young immigrants from deportation if they were brought to the U.S. illegally as children.

Marielena Hincapie, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center, reacted swiftly to the ruling, Politico reports.

"Immigrant families & their US citizen children have been waiting anxiously for the 5th Circuit to rule. Now, we call on the DOJ to seek cert before the Supreme Court immediately where we are more likely to obtain justice for our communities," she told Politico.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/US-.../09/id/701387/

The Obama Admin. had said they would not appeal this decision, whatever it happened to be. Let's see if they keep their promise.

Great news! Going out to our networks now!

William

ALIPAC Alert going out now...

http://www.alipac.us/f8/breaking-ano...6/#post1480548

Richard Wolf and Alan Gomez, USA TODAY 10:56 p.m. EST November 9, 2015

A federal appeals court dealt a potentially fatal blow Monday to President Obama's immigration plan, leaving more than 4 million undocumented immigrants in legal limbo and setting up a possible Supreme Court battle at the sunset of his administration.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld a challenge to the deferred deportation program brought by Texas and 25 other states with Republican governors, who argued that Obama lacked the authority to protect about one-third of the nation's undocumented immigrants by executive fiat.

The authority that the administration claimed, the court said in a 2-1 ruling, would allow it "to grant lawful presence and work authorization to any illegal alien in the United States."

The decision had been anticipated by the administration and immigration rights groups, who have hung their hopes on the Supreme Court rather than the conservative appeals court with jurisdiction over Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi. But the four-month wait for a ruling, since oral arguments were held before the three-judge panel, could mean that the justices won't get the case during their current term -- and won't decide it before Obama leaves office.

Under that scenario, the 4.3 million undocumented immigrants deemed eligible for the program would be at the mercy of the next president — either a Democrat who favors giving them temporary protection from deportation, or a Republican who most likely would have campaigned against it.

That makes the panel's decision a major blow to Obama, who has hoped to overhaul the nation's immigration system before leaving office even if Congress won't go along. And it's a crushing defeat for millions of immigrant families who hope to win protections that would make them eligible for three-year work permits and a host of health care, disability and retirement benefits.

"The most directly impacted are the five million U.S. citizen children whose parents would be eligible for temporary relief from deportation," said Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center. "We now call on the Department of Justice to seek Supreme Court review immediately, where we are more likely to obtain justice for our communities."

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton hailed the ruling. “Today, the 5th 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,” he said. “Throughout this process, the Obama administration has aggressively disregarded the constitutional limits on executive power, and Texas, leading a charge of 26 states, has secured an important victory to put a halt to the president’s lawlessness."

Obama unveiled the program last November as an extension of his 2012 policy delaying the threat of deportation for about 770,000 undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children. The new plan would broaden that program and add protections for adults with children who are U.S. citizens.

Federal District Court Judge Andrew Hanen temporarily blocked the program in February, ruling that the states were likely to win their argument that Obama lacked executive authority to carry out the plan without congressional action, or at the least a formal period for public comment. In May, the appeals court panel refused to let the program continue while it considered the appeal.

In his ruling Monday night, Circuit Court Judge Jerry Smith said Obama's program "would allow illegal aliens to receive the benefits of lawful presence solely on account of their children’s immigration status, without complying with any of the requirements ... that Congress has deliberately imposed." He was joined by Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod.

Their ruling said the program "would dramatically increase the number of aliens eligible for work authorization, thereby undermining Congress’s stated goal of closely guarding access to work authorization and preserving jobs for those lawfully in the country."

Judge Carolyn Dineen King dissented, arguing that the deferred action program was an "exercise of prosecutorial discretion" beyond the reach of federal court judges. She also criticized her court for stalling well beyond its normal 60-day period of review.

"I have a firm and definite conviction that a mistake has been made," she said. "That mistake has been exacerbated by the extended delay that has occurred in deciding this 'expedited' appeal. There is no justification for that delay."

The administration had argued that it was merely formalizing an existing policy of targeting the most dangerous undocumented immigrants and making millions of others a lower priority.

"The policies are a quintessential exercise of prosecutorial discretion, an executive function that is not subject to judicial review," it argued in court papers. "And they are an exercise of authority that Congress expressly granted to the (homeland security) secretary to establish policies for enforcement of the immigration laws, a uniquely federal domain into which states may not intrude."

The states opposed to the program argued that it would confer legality, if not citizenship, upon millions of immigrants who came to the country unlawfully -- forcing Texas and others to issue driver's licenses and incur other costs.

The program "would be one of the largest changes in immigration policy in our nation’s history," they told the appeals court. "Once this program goes into effect, it will be practically impossible to unwind all of its derivative consequences."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...plan/75491724/

I don't doubt that illegal aliens' supporters are already crafting "work arounds" to figure out some way they can stay in the US. We need to advance on other fronts. It was good to see Sen, Grassley taking a lead in questioning the DHS on their latest move. Please call Sen. Grassley to thank him for doing this. 202-224 3121 Also, send comments via whistleblower@judiciary-rep.senate.gov

Court upholds block on Obama's immigration plan

By Ariane de Vogue, CNN Supreme Court Reporter

Updated 8:42 AM ET, Tue November 10, 2015

Washington (CNN)A federal appeals court said President Barack Obama's controversial executive actions on immigration -- aimed at easing deportation threats for millions of undocumented immigrants -- must remain blocked.

On Monday night, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that a lower court did not "abuse its discretion" when it said challengers to the law were likely to succeed in their claim that the programs were unlawful because they didn't comply with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), a law that sets forward how federal agencies can establish regulations.

The ruling is a loss for the President -- who made immigration reform a key second-term initiative. The administration is expected to appeal the decision to either a larger panel of judges on the appeals court or, more likely, directly to the Supreme Court.

Under normal circumstances, in order for the Supreme Court to hear the case this term, briefing would have to be completed by mid-winter.

Texas and 25 other states had challenged the President's authority to implement the programs.

"Immigrant families and their U.S. children have been waiting anxiously for the Fifth Circuit to rule," said Karen Tumlin of the National Immigration Law Center. "We urge the DOJ to immediately ask the Supreme Court to review this erroneous decision."

Department of Justice spokesman Patrick Rodenbush spoke out against the ruling.

"The Department of Justice disagrees with the Fifth Circuit's adverse ruling on the appeal from the district court's preliminary injunction," he said.

"The Department is committed to taking steps that will resolve the immigration litigation as quickly as possible in order to allow DHS (Department of Homeland Security) 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."

Details of the ruling

The 70-page opinion was penned by Judge Jerry E. Smith, a Ronald Reagan appointee, along with Judge Jennifer Elrod, who was appointed to the bench by George W. Bush.

Smith wrote, "Reviewing the district court's order for abuse of discretion, we affirm the preliminary injunction because the states have standing; they have established a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their procedural and substantive APA claims; and they have satisfied the other elements required for this injunction."

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton praised the ruling.

"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," he said in a statement.

"Throughout this process, the Obama Administration has aggressively disregarded the constitutional limits on executive power, and Texas, leading a charge of 26 states, has secured an important victory to put a halt to the president's lawlessness."

The President's plan

Obama unveiled the new policies to great fanfare last November with the aim to marshal government resources and advance public safety and national security goals.

As part of the roll out, the administration established a process -- called Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) -- to enable about 4.3 million otherwise removable undocumented immigrants to be eligible for work authorization and associated benefits.

The executive actions also expanded the Deferred Action of Childhood Arrivals (DACA) -- a program that allows non citizens who were brought here as children to apply for work authorization and protection from deportation for three years.

Before the programs were slated to go into effect they were challenged by Texas and 25 other states. Republican governors argued the unilateral actions were unconstitutional, and that the administration also violated the APA.

DOJ lawyers countered that the actions were lawful and a "quintessential exercise of prosecutorial discretion" not subject to judicial review. They argued that Texas lacked the legal harm -- or "standing" -- necessary to bring the challenge.

Carolyn D. King, appointed to be bench by Jimmy Carter, wrote the dissent.

"There can be little doubt that Congress's choices as to the level of funding for immigration enforcement have left DHS with difficult prioritization decisions," she wrote.

She said, however, that "federal courts should not inject themselves into such matters of prosecutorial discretion." She also criticized the majority for taking so long to issue its opinion. "There is no justification for that delay," she said.

Elizabeth Wydra, chief counsel of the Constitutional Accountability Center, filed a brief on behalf of a bipartisan group of former members of Congress in support of the administration.

"The 5th Circuit majority misunderstands the discretion given to the executive under existing immigration law which the Supreme Court itself has explicitly recognized," she said.

CNN's Evan Perez contributed to this report.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/09/politi...-court-ruling/

Great news! Now hopefully they can run the clock out and Obama will be out of office before the Supreme Court gets this. But you realize we MUST have a NON-amnesty president in 2016 and the ONLY option is Trump! Both Hillary and psycho LIAR Ben Carson a pro amnesty so we MUST get out in HUGE numbers and vote for Trump!

This ruling means NOTHING if Hillary or Carson are president in 2016 since they are both pro AMNESTY!

by Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times - Tuesday, November 10, 2015

A federal appeals court said President Obama's own words claiming powers to "change the law" were part of the reason it struck down his deportation amnesty, in a ruling late Monday that reaffirmed the president must carry out laws and doesn't have blanket powers to waive them.

The 2-1 ruling by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals punctures Mr. Obama's immigration plans and is the latest in a series of major court rulings putting limits on the president's claims of expansive executive powers to enact his agenda without having to get congressional buy-in.

In an opinion freighted with meaning for the separation of powers battles, Judge Jerry E. Smith, writing for himself and Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod, singled out Mr. Obama's own claim that he acted to rewrite the law because Congress wouldn't pass the bill he wanted.

The key remark came in a speech in Chicago just days after his Nov. 20, 2014, announcement detailing his executive actions. Fed up with a heckler who was chiding him for boosting the number of deportations, Mr. Obama fired back, agreeing that he'd overseen a spike in deportations.

"But what you are not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law," the president said.

The two judges said the Justice Department failed to explain away Mr. Obama's remarks.

"At oral argument, and despite being given several opportunities, the attorney for the United States was unable to reconcile that remark with the position that the government now takes," Judge Smith wrote.

Whether Mr. Obama acted within the law is the crux of the case.

Texas and 25 other states, which sued to stop the amnesty, argue Mr. Obama went beyond the boundaries set in the Immigration and Nationality Act, which sets out specific instances where, on a case-by-case basis, the Homeland Security secretary can waive penalties and allow illegal immigrants to stay, granting them work permits which then entitle them to Social Security cards, tax credits and state driver's licenses.

A federal district court in Texas agreed with the states, halting Mr. Obama's policy, and now an appeals court has also sided with the states.

Writing in dissent on Monday, Judge Carolyn Dineen King dismissed Mr. Obama's claim that he changed the law, saying presidents often use imprecise language when talking about laws. She said Mr. Obama wasn't making a legal argument in his response to the heckler.

Mr. Obama's plan, known officially as Deferred Action for Parental Arrivals, or DAPA, was intended to grant up to 5 million illegal immigrants a proactive three-year stay of deportation and to give them work permits, allowing them to come out of the shadows and join American society — though they were still considered to be in the country illegally. To qualify, illegal immigrants had to be parents of U.S. citizens or legal permanent resident children.

The president characterized his plan as a use of prosecutorial discretion, reasoning that he was never going to deport them anyway, so they should be granted some more firm status.

But the court ruled that he not only didn't follow the usual rules in making a major policy change, but that his claims of power to grant tentative legal status to a massive class of people went beyond the waiver powers Congress granted him in the law.

Monday's decision is already reverberating across the presidential debate, with Hispanic-rights activists insisting Mr. Obama file an immediate appeal to the Supreme Court, and vowing to make immigration an issue in the 2016 election.

The top three Democratic candidates for president had already said they not only thought what Mr. Obama was doing was legal, but they had vowed to go beyond it and expand the amnesty to still more illegal immigrants. GOP candidates, meanwhile, have vowed to repeal Mr. Obama's policies.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...rtation-amnes/