Thread: Feds Appeal To End Judge's Block On Deportation Protections

Feds Appeal To End Judge's Block On Deportation Protections

The federal government asked the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Thursday to end a Texas judge's temporary block on programs that would shield millions of immigrants from deportation.

The Department of Justice said the temporary injunction ordered by federal Judge Edward Hanen on Feb. 17 in a lawsuit filed by Texas and joined by several states is unprecedented and wrong.

The order stopped programs authorized by President Barack Obama that would grant deportation deferrals and work permits to millions of immigrants illegally here.

"The court should stay the injunction in its entirety, or at the very least, stay it with respect to implementation in states other than Texas, or states that are not parties to this suit," the government said.
The federal government argues in its filing that the Constitution does not entitle states to intrude in the "uniquely federal domain" of immigration enforcement. "Yet the district court has taken the extraordinary step of allowing a state to override the United States' exercise of its enforcement discretion in the immigration laws," the federal government argues.

DHS also argued that the court's injunction was "overbroad" because the judge kept the department from implementing the programs, known as DACA and DAPA, nationwide. States that unopposed to the programs have not been able to move forward with them.

The federal government had asked Hanen to respond by this past Monday to its request that he do away with the preliminary injunction, but Hanen did not take action.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/f...errals-n322361

The federal government argues in its filing that the Constitution does not entitle states to intrude in the "uniquely federal domain" of immigration enforcement. "Yet the district court has taken the extraordinary step of allowing a state to override the United States' exercise of its enforcement discretion in the immigration laws," the federal government argues.

Au contraire, Amigos. The US Constitution clearly establishes that the federal government has no authority or entitlement to authorize any foreign person, let alone illegal aliens, to intrude upon the clearly established domain of the states or of the people. The federal government has one authority with regards to immigration under the US Constitution and that is after the year 1808, the right to prohibit and tax immigration desired by the states. The federal government has no authority at all of any kind under the US Constitution to permit foreign persons illegal occupation of any part of the United States.

The federal government had asked Hanen to respond by this past Monday to its request that he do away with the preliminary injunction, but Hanen did not take action.

Excellent, finally a member of the Judiciary Branch who knows he doesn't report to King Obama. GO HANEN!

Hopefully, we'll have some more members of the Judiciary Branch who serve on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals who know this as well.

DHS also argued that the court's injunction was "overbroad" because the judge kept the department from implementing the programs, known as DACA and DAPA, nationwide. States that unopposed to the programs have not been able to move forward with them.

DHS? Does DHS have standing to file such a request with a federal US court? On what basis? On what grounds? I don't believe either the US Justice Department or the Department of Homeland Security have "standing" to file such a request with a Federal US Court. The subjects of the lawsuit are foreign persons not under the jurisdiction of the United States, they are in fact invaders present in the country in violation of federal law. They cause civil rights violations against US citizens with makes the US Justice Department complicit in these violations by filing requests to permit these violations. They pose the greatest single threat to the national security of the United States which contradicts the entire purpose of the existence of the US Department of Homeland Security. They along with their illegal benefactors are causing turmoil and unrest in our nation which is disturbing and disrupting the domestic tranquility of our country.

So if I were Texas, I would challenge the legal standing of either the US Department of Justice or the US Department of Homeland Security to even make a such a request and instead request that based on these federal agencies having no standing, their request be thrown out due to lack of standing.

As to the states that are unopposed, there is no state that is unopposed. There are states who haven't joined the lawsuit, that does not mean they are unopposed. There are 12 attorney generals, political hacks of the President who signed a false amicus "friend of the court" brief that contains false and dishonest information, but that does not mean the States or the people that comprise them are unopposed.

by Caroline May
12 Mar 2015

The Obama administration has filed an appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit seeking to lift U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen’s hold on President Obama’s executive amnesty.

The Justice Department filed an emergency motion Thursday to stay Hanen’s preliminary hold on the executive actions, in which he ruled in favor of 26 states that are currently challenging the executive amnesty.

“The district court’s order is unprecedented and wrong,” the Justice Department argues in its filing. “The Constitution does not entitle States to intrude into the uniquely federal domain of immigration enforcement….Yet the district court has taken the extraordinary step of allowing a State to override the United States’ exercise of its enforcement discretion in the immigration laws.”

The appeal to the 5th Circuit comes after the Justice Department threatened the lower court to lift its injunction or else it would appeal.

Instead of lifting the injunction Hanen called on the administration to answer for its moves to enact a part of Obama’s executive amnesty early — namely issuing some 100,000 expanded work permits under Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals programs in advance of the expanded program’s start date.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton responded to the appeal by vowing to continue to fight against the executive actions and pointed to the early begining to expanded DACA as a major concern.

“The most pressing issue at hand is the extent to which the Obama Administration has already issued expanded work permits to illegal immigrants, in direct contradiction to what they told the district court,” Paxton said.

He also noted that once the executive amnesty gets underway it will be difficult to roll back.

“Further, as the court noted in granting a preliminary injunction, any implementation of President Obama’s directives will be difficult, if not impossible, to reverse,” he added.”

The Justice Department is asking for a ruling from the 5th Circuit within 14 days.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...utive-amnesty/

The Justice Department is asking for a ruling from the 5th Circuit within 14 days.

Or what? Is this another one of your threats against a US Court? Do you think you're the only case in town? Do you think your frivolous "appeal" takes precedence over all of the other cases pending on the plate of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals? People who have filed lawsuits often wait up to a year to get on the docket of an appeals court. And for some reason, you think you can preempt these other cases and jump yourselves and your anti-American agenda to the front of the line? Well, I would certainly hope not. First in time, first in line. Learn it, live it.

The Fate Of Nearly 5 Million Immigrants Rests With One Of The Most Conservative Courts In America

BY IAN MILLHISER POSTED ON MARCH 13, 2015 AT 10:41 AM

CREDIT: AP PHOTO/JACQUELYN MARTIN

The Justice Department, and the nearly 5 million immigrants whose fate rests upon whether it can ward off a legal challenge to President Obama’s newest immigration policies, may have leaped out of the frying pan and into the fire on Thursday. After waiting fruitlessly for a Republican judge to give them an answer one way or another on a request to stay one of his previous decisions, the Justice Department asked the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to bypass that judge and issue the stay themselves. The Fifth Circuit, however, is one of the most conservative federal appeals courts in the country. So the Justice Department may have simply traded one set of problems for another.

Last month, Judge Andrew Hanen, a Republican with a history of hostility towards the Obama administration’s immigration policies, issued an order single-handedly halting changes President Obama announced last November that would allow approximately 4.9 million undocumented immigrants to temporarily live openly in the United States. Since then, Hanen has delayed ruling on a Justice Department motion asking him to stay this decision, delays that make it difficult for DOJ to seek a stay from a higher court.

On Thursday, the Justice Department filed a motion asking the United States Courts of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to bypass Hanen and grant such a stay anyway. Such motions seeking to bypass a federal trial judge are not usually granted, although judges also typically do not sit on stay requests in the way Hanen has delayed deciding DOJ’s request.

If DOJ has not enjoyed the dismissive treatment they’ve experienced in Judge Hanen’s courtroom, however, they may find that the Fifth Circuit is no more hospitable. Ten of the Fifth Circuit’s judges are Republican appointees, while only five were appointed by Democratic presidents. A panel of the Fifth Circuit once suggested that undocumented immigrants are not entitled to the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unlawful searches and seizures.

Five of its judges once voted to allow a man to be executed despite the fact that his lawyer slept through much of his trial. The court once ordered a high school cheerleader to pay sanctions after she sued the school district that told her to cheer for her alleged rapist.

Hanen’s original order halted the Deferred Action for Parental Accountability (DAPA) program, as well as an expansion of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) which already allows many young undocumented immigrants to remain in the country. Both of these programs are, effectively, non-enforcement programs. As the Justice Department explained in a memorandum, “there are approximately 11.3 million undocumented aliens in the country,” but the federal government only “has the resources to remove fewer than 400,000 such aliens each year.” Thus, the federal government necessarily must make decisions about how it will target its limited immigration enforcement resources.

DAPA and DACA both provide transparency to immigrants who are not priorities for enforcement, such as law-abiding parents of United States citizens or college-educated immigrants who came to the United States as children — the DAPA and DACA programs declare openly that these immigrants will not be subject to enforcement so long as they benefit from the programs. Meanwhile, other undocumented immigrants, such as violent criminals, are prioritized for deportation.

In 2012, in a decision handed down shortly after President Obama announced the DACA program, the Supreme Court strongly suggested that these programs are legal. “A principle feature” of the deportations process, the Court explained in Arizona v. United States, “is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials.” When confronted with an immigrant who is eligible for deportation, “federal officials, as an initial matter, must decide whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all.”

Though Hanen’s February order is riddled with language denying that the executive branch’s “broad discretion” over immigration matters extends to programs like DAPA, he ultimately claims that he is “not addressing” any substantive attacks on DAPA or expanded DACA. Instead, he ordered the programs halted on the narrow grounds that the Obama administration neglected to jump through some burdensome-but-surmountable procedural hoops before it implemented the programs. DOJ claims in its motion to the Fifth Circuit that this narrow holding is erroneous, arguing that, under the Supreme Court’s precedents “an agency’s decision not to undertake enforcement action involves discretionary judgments regarding resource allocation and other factors that are not amenable to judicial oversight and is presumptively unreviewable” under the relevant federal law.

Whatever the strength of DOJ’s arguments, however, they first must get those arguments to a judge who is open to them. The advantage of seeking relief from the Fifth Circuit is that its judges do not include Andrew Hanen. But that does not mean that the Justice Department will not draw a panel of judges who share Hanen’s strong views about immigration.

http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-e...329-story.html

The only "standing" issue on the table is what "standing" does the US Department of Justice and US Department of Homeland Security have to request a removal of an injunction against an illegal act to benefit persons who under our laws of justice in the cause of national security aren't supposed to be here in the first place?

The absurdity of the federal government being able to file motions to resume its illegal acts of issuing work permits to illegal aliens when it has no legal standing to do either one, should quickly bubble to the top of the debate.

http://www.alipac.us/f12/judge-denie...action-318711/