Thread: Obama's immigration actions ruled unconstitutional

Obama's immigration actions ruled unconstitutional

By JOSH GERSTEIN |
12/16/14 2:27 PM EST
A federal judge in Pennsylvania has ruled President Barack Obama's recent executive actions on immigration unconstitutional, but the decision came in a criminal case, leaving its broader impact uncertain.

U.S. District Court Judge Arthur Schwab issued the first-of-its-kind ruling Tuesday in the case of Elionardo Juarez-Escobar, a Honduran immigrant charged in federal court with unlawful re-entry after being arrested earlier this year in Pennsylvania for drunk driving.

"President Obama’s unilateral legislative action violates the separation of powers provided for in the United States Constitution as well as the Take Care Clause, and therefore, is unconstitutional," Schwab wrote in his 38-page opinion (posted here). "President Obama’s November 20, 2014 Executive Action goes beyond prosecutorial discretion because: (a) it provides for a systematic and rigid process by which a broad group of individuals will be treated differently than others based upon arbitrary classifications, rather than case-by-case examination; and (b) it allows undocumented immigrants, who fall within these broad categories, to obtain substantive rights."

The Pittsburgh-based judge rejected a Justice Department legal opinion arguing that Obama's actions fall within the traditional realm of the executive's discretion about which cases to pursue and which to overlook.

Schwab, a George W. Bush appointee, also quoted in detail from a series of public statements Obama made in recent years about the limits on his executive authority to make sweeping changes in immigration enforcement.

A Justice Department spokesman referred questions about the decision to the White House, which had no immediate comment.

However, in a court filing earlier this month, prosecutors argued that Obama's decision to defer deportation of many immigrations did not limit criminal cases like the one against Juarez-Escobar.

"This policy...relates only to civil immigration enforcement status; it does not mention § 1326(a) proceedings and has no effect on criminal prosecutions," prosecutors wrote in their filing (posted here). "Modification of DHS policy to prioritize particular classes of unauthorized aliens in order to allocate resources for civil immigration enforcement does not limit the Department of Justice’s prosecutorial decision on the criminal referral in this case."

Lawsuits challenging Obama's policies in a more direct way are pending in Washington, D.C. and Brownsville, Texas. A hearing on a request to block the presidential actions is scheduled for next week in the D.C. case, brought by Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio. In the Texas case, a total of 24 states are questioning the legality of Obama's immigration moves.

Since Schwab is a Bush appointee, it will be tempting for many immigrant rights advocates to view his opinion as a political swipe at Obama. Indeed, many of the judge's arguments parallel those being put forward by Republican critics of the president's immigration actions.

However, the judge's opinion raises a question that some advocates of more liberal immigration policies will not be able to dismiss so easily: why don't Obama's actions apply to criminal prosecutions as well as deportations?

Indeed, what is the point of protecting immigrants from being expelled from the country if they can still be sent to prison for having illegally entered the country in the first place?

Schwab said in his ruling Tuesday that he's open to Juarez-Escobar withdrawing a guilty plea he offered in October, less than a month before Obama announced plans to allow family members of U.S. citizens to stay in the U.S for up to three years and obtain work permits.

Schwab's opinion appears to have been first reported by the Volokh Conspiracy blog.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-...al-200043.html

However, the judge's opinion raises a question that some advocates of more liberal immigration policies will not be able to dismiss so easily: why don't Obama's actions apply to criminal prosecutions as well as deportations?

The better question is why isn't a deportation a criminal prosecution? There is a crime, hearing, trial, ruling, conviction and sentencing. Sounds like a criminal prosecution to me.

Judges must rely (if not legislating from the bench) on law as it exists in the present. This thing is going to become interesting, I hope they can keep democrat vs. republican out of it, stick to the law as it existed at the time of the offense.

IMMIGRATION REBUKE: Federal judge rules Obama's actions unconstitutional

• 
  AP
• A FEDERAL JUDGE declares parts of President Obama's immigration executive actions unconstitutional, in the first court opinion to tackle Obama's controversial policy changes.

​

• READ: The court opinion
• Administration urges dismissal of lawsuit over immigration
• VIDEO: A firsthand look at immigration issues from the US border
• VIDEO: Sen. Lee reacts to backlash over immigration vote

BREAKING: Federal judge finds Obama amnesty is unconstitutional

Ruling doesn’t immediately overturn policy

By Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times - Tuesday, December 16, 2014
A federal judge has found parts of President Obama’s new deportation amnesty to be unconstitutional, issuing a scathing memo Tuesday accusing him of usurping Congress’s power to make laws, and dismantling most of the White House’s legal reasoning for circumventing Congress.

Judge Arthur J. Schwab, sitting in the western district of Pennsylvania, said presidents do have powers to use discretion in deciding how to enforce the law, but said Mr. Obama’s new policy goes well beyond that, setting up a full system for granting legal protections to broad groups of individuals. He said Mr. Obama writing laws — a power that’s reserved for Congress, not the president.

---

SEE ALSO: Amnesty fight: Obama admin tells courts they’re powerless to stop executive order

---

“President Obama’s unilateral legislative action violates the separation of powers provided for in the United States Constitution as well as the Take Care Clause, and therefore is unconstitutional,” Judge Schwab wrote.
The judge also said the policy allows illegal immigrants “to obtain substantive rights.”
The memo came as part of a deportation case before the judge, and Judge Schwab’s order does not invalidate the president’s policies. But it serves as a warning shot as other direct challenges to the new amnesty begin to make their way through the courts.

---

SEE ALSO: Obama amnesty in jeopardy with Bush judicial appointee hearing states’ challenge

---

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., will hear one of those challenges in oral arguments next week, and a similar case is proceeding in Texas.
Mr. Obama’s new policy, announced Nov. 20, would allow up to 5 million illegal immigrants to apply for “deferred action,” which is a proactive notice that they won’t be deported, and a grant of a work permit to allow them to legally compete for jobs.
To qualify, illegal immigrants would need to show they were brought to the U.S. as children, or to show that they have children who are either U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents of the country.
The White House defends the policy as a reasonable use of Mr. Obama’s powers to set priorities for enforcing laws, and to stop the break-up of families due to deportation.
In the Washington case, the Obama administration filed a brief late Monday arguing that immigration authorities can only deport fewer than 400,000 immigrants a year, out of a population of more than 11 million. They said makes sense for Mr. Obama to carve out millions of those who he won’t bother to go after, so immigration agents can focus on the rest.
The administration lawyers also said the policy doesn’t grant illegal immigrants any rights, and said they could still be deported “at any time.”
But Judge Schwab went point-by-point in refuting those arguments, saying that since Mr. Obama couched his policy as a moral imperative to keep families together, it is not so easy to undo his policy.
And the judge repeatedly used Mr. Obama’s own words against him, listing some of the times the president had previously said he didn’t have the power to take the exact actions he has now taken.
The case before Judge Schwab involved an illegal immigrant, Elionardo Juarez-Escobar, who was deported in 2005 but snuck back into the U.S., ending up in Pittsburgh, where his brother, a U.S. citizen, owned a landscaping company.

Juarez-Escobar went to work for his brother, but was snared in a traffic stop by local police earlier this year, and was reported to federal authorities, who charged him with illegally reentering the U.S.
Judge Schwab wanted to know why Mr. Obama’s new amnesty didn’t apply to Juarez-Escobar, who has already pleaded guilty to the illegal reentry charge. Judge Schwab has said Juarez-Escobar could be allowed to change his plea.
And the judge questioned why Mr. Obama’s new policy only applied to parent-child relationships and not to Juarez-Escobar, who has a “close bond” with his brother. The judge said Juarez-Escobar appears to be “more ‘family’ than ‘felon,’” which would seem to make him a low priority under the president’s deportation policies.
Judge Schwab was appointed to the federal courts by President George W. Bush, taking his seat in 2002.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz3M7FeHlXt
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz3M7FWKrze
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

This great news is up and out to our networks tonight via this announcement!

Breaking News: Federal Judge Rules #Obama #Amnesty Unconstitutional! Read more at #alipac
http://www.alipac.us/breaking-news-f...tutional-3471/

by Caroline May 16 Dec 2014, 12:15 PM PDT

A federal district court judge in Pennsylvania ruled Tuesday that portions of President Obama’s executive amnesty are unconstitutional, according to the Washington Post.

Western Pennsylvania District Judge Arthur Schwab concluded in his opinion that Obama’s executive actions go “beyond prosecutorial discretion” and into the realm of legislating.

“President Obama’s unilateral legislative action violates the separation of powers provided for int he United States Constitution as well as the Take Care Clause, and therefore, is unconstitutional,” Schwab wrote in his opinion.

Schwab’s ruling, the Washington Post notes, is the first judicial opinion rendered about President Obama’s executive amnesty.

The Pennsylvania opinion came as a result of a case involving an illegal immigrant — Elionardo Juarez-Escobar — arrested for drunk driving and who was found to have already been deported in 2005 but illegally re-entered the country. The court sought to consider whether the November executive orders would apply to Escobar.

In the course of that consideration, Schwab determined some of the actions to be unconstitutional.

"The opinion of the Pennsylvania federal district court regarding the President's Executive Action on Immigration came from an unexpected place, in an unexpected context; but the court was correct in stating that the Executive Action is an unconstitutional violation of Separation of Powers,” John S. Baker, Jr. Louisiana State University Law School professor said in a statement reacting to the decision.

Three other legal challenges to Obama’s executive actions are still awaiting outcomes, including a suit filed by 24 states challenging the executive actions.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...constitutional

Gee, a federal judge who knows an unconstitutional act when he sees one! Obviously he wasn't nominated by Barry Hussein Soetoro!