Thread: SCOTUS denies Texas delay tactic on immigration actions

SCOTUS denies Texas delay tactic on immigration actions

12/01/15 07:21 PM—UPDATED 12/01/15 08:07 PM

By Amanda Sakuma

It is now more likely that the Supreme Court will have the final say as to whether one of the most sweeping immigration plans to date will ever see the light of day.

The high court on Tuesday granted the 26 states challenging President Obama’s executive actions on immigration just eight extra days to respond to the administration’s appeal. The extension is a far cry from the full 30 days that the states initially requested, which was seen as a delay tactic designed to punt the issue into 2017 and run out the clock on Obama’s final term in office.

RELATED: Texas tries to run out the clock on immigration actions

The states challenging the executive actions now have until Dec. 29 to file briefs opposing Supreme Court review. And though the timeline is tight, it gives a narrow opening for the court to decide by mid-January whether to take up the case. If the justices determine that the case warrants review, oral arguments would then follow in April, with an ultimate decision coming by late June.

MORNING JOE, 12/1/15, 7:23 AM ET

Christie on immigration and the border


The lives of nearly 5 million undocumented immigrants hang in the balance while the issue works its way through the courts.

The executive measures would have built on an existing program known as DACA, which offers some undocumented immigrants temporary work status and a shield from deportation. The new programs would have expanded the pool of eligible DREAMers (undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as kids) and the undocumented parents of U.S.-born citizens and legal permanent residents.The latest executive measures have been on hold since February, blocked by two notoriously conservative lower courts – the U.S. District Court in Brownsville, Texas, and Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The White House has seen the Supreme Court as it’s greatest shot at lifting the temporary freeze on the programs before the end of Obama’s second term.

If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, its decision would land squarely before the national conventions naming each party’s presidential nominee. It will be up to Obama’s successor to decide whether his legacy on immigration will carry on past 2016. So far; all Republican candidates have vowed to chip away at that legacy; Democratic nominees have said they will take executive actions a step further.

“The decision today appears to recognize the urgency of the situation, both for immigrants and for the country. Like the nativists in Congress blocking reform, the plaintiffs in this case seek to block progress by silencing immigrants and depriving them of political equality, but they will be on the losing side of history,” Pablo Alvarado, executive director of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON), said in a statement. “The status quo is cruel, unjust, and discriminatory.

We must continue to seek relief by every means available. No one at this point should be relying exclusively on Washington for relief.”

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/scotus-de...igration-delay

11/23/15

Texas move may delay U.S. Supreme Court immigration case review

Supreme Court denies states’ requests for filing extension in immigration suit

By Jerry Markon December 1 at 8:14 PM

The Supreme Court handed the Obama administration a procedural but important victory Tuesday in its efforts to get the justices to rule next year on President Obama’s plan to shield millions of illegal immigrants from deportation.

The court rejected a request from Texas and other states for a 30-day extension to file legal briefs in support of the lawsuit to block the immigration plan. If granted, the extension would have made it very unlikely that the court could hear the case during its current term.

Instead, the justices accepted the Justice Department’s request for a shortened eight-day extension, meaning that if the court decides to take the case a decision would probably come by late June. A victory for the government would allow it to start enrolling immigrants in the program before the president leaves office in January 2017 — an outcome the administration has been seeking with heightened urgency.

The court is not expected to decide until January whether to take the case. If it does, the decision would come in the heat of the 2016 presidential campaign. Immigration policy and Obama’s efforts to protect immigrants already living in the United States have emerged as heated campaign topics.

The legal and political debate centers on Obama’s plan, announced in November 2014, to allow millions of undocumented immigrants to live and work in the United States for three years without fear of deportation. The program, known as Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) allows parents of U.S. citizens to apply for work permits, provided they have lived in the country for at least five years and pass required background checks.

Obama has made reforming the immigration system a top second-term priority, and he acted unilaterally after Republicans in Congress blocked a comprehensive bill.

But a federal judge in Texas blocked his immigration program in February after Texas and 25 other states sued the administration, calling the moves unconstitutional.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit last month upheld the injunction preventing the deferred-action program from taking effect, prompting the administration to seek Supreme Court review.

Administration officials said they are hopeful that a victory at the high court in June would give them enough time to launch the program with Obama still in office.

Texas and the other states requested an extension that would give them until Jan. 20 to file briefs in opposition to the government’s Supreme Court petition. But U.S. Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. objected in a letter to the court last week, citing the urgency of getting the matter resolved.

Verrilli instead suggested an eight-day delay that would require the states to file their briefs by Dec. 29. That is the schedule ordered by the court.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...973_story.html

Immigration Case on Track for 2016 U.S. Supreme Court Ruling

Greg Stohr GregStohr
December 1, 2015 — 2:02 PM PST
Updated on December 1, 2015 — 2:41 PM PST


The American flag flies next to the U.S. Supreme Court in this photograph taken with a tilt-shift lens in Washington, D.C., U.S., on Thursday, June 11, 2015.

Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg

• Supreme Court rejects Texas bid for delay in filing deadline
• Texas sought 30-day filing extension, received eight days

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected Texas’s request for a 30-day extension to file its opening brief on President Barack Obama’s deferred-deportation program, in a move that leaves open the possibility the high court will rule on the plan next year.

The justices gave Texas an eight-day delay, heeding calls from the Obama administration to keep the case on track for a potential decision by the end of the court’s term in June. The administration is seeking review after a federal appeals court blocked the program.

Under the court’s normal scheduling practices, a 30-day delay would have prevented consideration of the case until the court’s next term starts in October 2016. The court gave no explanation for the decision, and there were no recorded dissents.

The administration’s program would shield as many as 5 million undocumented immigrants from deportation and let them obtain work permits and some public benefits. The plan, which was announced by Obama a year ago but hasn’t taken effect, applies to people whose children are either U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents and who meet other requirements.

The case takes on added significance as the 2016 presidential campaign is under way and Republican candidates routinely criticize Obama’s immigration policy.

A federal appeals court ruled 2-1 that Obama was overstepping his authority.

The administration’s appeal argues that Texas and 25 other states lack the legal right to challenge the program. Justice Department lawyers also contend that past Supreme Court cases afford the president broad discretion to set deportation priorities. Texas plans to ask the Supreme Court to reject the Obama administration’s appeal without a hearing.

Obama’s top Supreme Court lawyer, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, urged the justices to limit the extension to eight days to ensure the case could be heard in the current term.

A delay would “prolong for an additional year the disruption of federal immigration policy,” Verrilli told the court in a letter Tuesday. He said that if the court were to grant the full extension, he would ask for a rare May argument session.

In his request for more time, Texas Solicitor General Scott Keller cited workload, saying the states’ lawyers had “numerous pressing deadlines” in other cases. Keller didn’t directly address the prospect that an extension might push the case into the 2016-17 term, though he said the administration could have sought a stay of the lower court ruling.

The administration filed its petition on Nov. 20, making Dec. 21 the original due date for the Texas response. Parties often request an extension of time to file and the court grants most of those requests as a matter of course.

The timing of the immigration case made it unusual. The court typically adds the last cases of the term in January, when the nine justices have three private conferences scheduled to consider bids for review. The last of those meetings takes place Jan. 22, and the justices aren’t scheduled to meet again until Feb. 19. The last scheduled arguments are in late April.

The case is United States v. Texas, 15-674.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/ar...iling-deadline

“The decision today appears to recognize the urgency of the situation, both for immigrants and for the country. Like the nativists in Congress blocking reform, the plaintiffs in this case seek to block progress by silencing immigrants and depriving them of political equality, but they will be on the losing side of history,” Pablo Alvarado, executive director of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network (NDLON), said in a statement. “The status quo is cruel, unjust, and discriminatory.

We must continue to seek relief by every means available. No one at this point should be relying exclusively on Washington for relief.”

Not one word of "not supposed to be here". They should not have political equality, go back to your countries and tell your leaders what you want. You are here illegally, criminals raping & killing our citizens, taking jobs, welfare for all babymakers then taking up classroom space with more teachers needed and bilingual too. Costing us a fortune while there is talk of cutting social security, deteriorating roads & bridges, not enough money for proper treatment of veterans. Paleeze, sneek back!

Iowa Lawmaker Supports Executing Some Felons in US Illegally

I am researching how well many of our other laws on immigration are enforced. As some may have read some of my recent posts, Congress also decided to have a high standard for legal immigrants, too, and if they slip below that standard it is supposed to be automatic deportation.

I bring this up, because in legal arguments if you can show that a party is not to be trusted in other, established areas it serves to undermine their reputation or credibility regarding their case. With the ultra liberal female justices on the Supreme Court, nothing is really guaranteed these days, so this case makes me anxious. Obama's actions are so sweeping that they should be seen as outright defiance of elected, representational authority. But this Court has often seemed to show that it doesn't care anyway, and will just decide whatever it wants to.

2/7/15

Federal judge halts Obama's amnesty orders