Thread: Judge: Sanctions Possible in Obama Immigration Court Case

BROWNSVILLE, Texas — Mar 19, 2015, 9:01 PM ET
By JUAN A. LOZANO Associated Press

A federal judge who has blocked President Barack Obama's immigration executive action suggested on Thursday that he could order sanctions against the Justice Department if he rules it misled him about when exactly the administration began implementing one of the measures.

During a sometimes testy court hearing, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen went back and forth with the Justice Department over whether it had mislead him into believing that a key part of Obama's program would not be implemented before he made a ruling on a request for a preliminary injunction. In fact, federal officials had given more than 108,000 people three-year reprieves from deportation before that date and granted them work permits under a program that protects young immigrants from deportation if they were brought to the U.S. illegally as children.

Obama's executive actions would spare from deportation as many as 5 million people who are in the U.S. illegally. Many Republicans oppose the actions, saying only Congress has the right to take such sweeping action. Twenty-six states led by Texas joined together to challenge them as unconstitutional. Hanen on Feb. 16 sided with the states, issuing a preliminary injunction blocking Obama's actions.

Hanen chided Justice Department attorney Kathleen Hartnett on Thursday for telling him at a January hearing before the injunction was issued that nothing would be happening with regard to one key part of Obama's actions, an expansion of the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as DACA, until Feb. 18.

"Like an idiot I believed that," Hanen said.

A flustered Hartnett repeatedly apologized to Hanen for any confusion related to how the reprieves and work permits were granted.

"We strive to be as candid as possible. It truly became clear to us there was confusion on this point," she said.

Hartnett continued to insist that the 108,081 reprieves had been granted under 2012 guidelines, which were not stopped by the injunction, and that government attorneys hadn't properly explained this because they had been focused on other parts of the proposed action.

But Hanen pointed out that the 2012 guidelines only granted two-year reprieves and that three-year reprieves are being proposed under the program now on hold.

"Can I trust what the president says? That's a yes or no question," Hanen asked.

"Yes your honor," Hartnett replied.

The states asked that Hanen consider issuing sanctions because Justice Department attorneys had made "representations (that) proved not to be true or at a minimum less than forthcoming," said Angela Colmenero, a lawyer with the Texas Attorney General's Office, the lead attorney for the states.

Colmenero said the three-year reprieves that were granted might have caused the states economic harm as the states may have already issued various benefits, including driver's licenses, to immigrants who received a reprieve.

"There is absolutely no basis for sanctions here," Hartnett said. "The government is absolutely trying to do the right thing."

Hanen said he would issue a ruling "promptly" on what action, if any, he will take against the Justice Department.

The federal government has asked the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans to lift Hanen's injunction while the case is appealed.

The other states seeking to block Obama's orders are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireS...ction-29761686

March 19, 2015
By SARAH FLORES AND CAMERON LANGFORD

BROWNSVILLE, Texas (CN) - The federal judge presiding over the Texas-led challenge to President Obama's immigrant amnesty programs asked a Justice Department attorney Thursday, "Can I trust what the president says?"
It was a fair question from U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen, after the Justice Department revealed earlier this month that U.S. Customs and Immigration Services had extended lawful presence rights from two to three years for 100,000 undocumented immigrants after telling the judge USCIS would not process any applications for such extensions until March 4.
"You were the one who said nothing would happen until March 4. I look like an idiot," Hanen told federal attorney Kathleen Hartnett at a hearing on Thursday.
Hartnett apologized to Hanen for any confusion and assured him the government strives for accuracy. "You can rely on the Justice Department," she said.
Hanen issued an injunction against the Department of Homeland Security's expanded amnesty programs on Feb. 16, putting the estimated 5 million immigrants who could qualify in limbo and drawing condemnation from immigrant advocates who claim he was handpicked for the case by the 26 Republican-led states who sued over the policies.
Hanen has been openly critical of Obama's immigration policies.
The Obama administration implemented the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program in 2012, and last November announced it would be modified to increase the number of people eligible.
The original DACA program allows immigrants who came to the United States as children, lived here since June 15, 2007, went to school, have not committed serious crimes, and are under 31 years of age to apply for legal status and federal work permits.
The administration expanded DACA in November 2014 by removing the age cap, pushing up the date on which immigrants must have lived in the United States to Jan. 1, 2010 and extending the legal status of those who qualify from two to three years.
In his speech announcing the November changes to DACA, Obama unveiled Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA), which would make some parents of U.S. citizens or legal residents eligible to apply for the right to live in the United States without fear of deportation and for federal work permits.
Following the Justice Department's confession about the 100,000 immigrants, Texas filed a motion for early discovery. Thursday's hearing focused on that motion.
With supporters of DACA and DAPA shouting "Si se puede," and holding signs stating "We Work Hard," "We Pay Taxes" and "We Are Good For the Economy" outside the Brownsville Federal Building and Courthouse, Hanen presided over a one-hour hearing there.
Texas Assistant Attorney General Angela Colmenero came up to bat first and she had some accusatory words for the Feds.
"Defendants made representations to the status quo and assured the court that they would not make any decisions until March 4, 2015, but this did not happen," she said.
"Defendants were actively moving forward with the applications process and no notice was provided to plaintiffs regarding the change to the status quo."
Colmenero also went after the merits of modified DACA, claiming it will motivate new immigrants to enter the country illegally and that the "expansion from two years to three years would cause harm by a wave of immigrants flooding our borders."
Hanen was understandably weary of government attorney Kathleen Hartnett, who had promised no modified DACA applications would be processed until March 4 at the Jan. 15 hearing.
"Can I trust what you say? Can I trust what the president says? It's an easy question, yes or no?" he asked.
"Yes your honor, you can," Hartnett said.
At the close she told Hanen the government is in the process of changing the 55 three-year DACA cards that went out after the injunction back to two years, and that anybody who applied for DACA before Nov. 24, 2014 was given the extension of legal status to three years.
Hanen said he "will be making a prompt ruling" on the plaintiffs' motion for expedited discovery.
The Justice Department appealed to the 5th Circuit shortly after Hanen issued his injunction. The government also asked that court for an emergency stay of the injunction in a filing this past Friday.
The New Orleans-based appellate court gave the plaintiffs until March 23 to reply.
Numerous parties from both sides of the issue have weighed in on the case.
The attorneys general for the Democrat-led states of Washington, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and the District of Columbia asked the 5th Circuit for permission to file a friend of the court brief in support of Obama's policies on Tuesday.
The states claim Hanen erred by deciding that Texas has standing to bring the lawsuit because they will bear the costs of processing driver's license applications for qualifying immigrants.
"A single state cannot dictate national immigration policy, yet that is what the district court allowed here. Relying entirely on Texas's speculative claims, the district court enjoined vital immigration reforms nationwide," wrote Noah Purcell, Washington state's solicitor general.
Texas was the only state of the 26 plaintiffs to present evidence of how the policies would allegedly harm them. Purcell played that up in the brief.
"At the very least, this court should stay the order outside Texas, as no other state has presented any evidence that it will suffer the irreparable injury needed to justify injunctive relief," he wrote.
The blue states added that Obama's policies should go into effect because they will be good for all state economies.
"Moving these people out of the shadows and into the legal workforce is estimated to increase Washington's tax revenues by $57 million over the next five years. California's tax revenues are estimated to grow by $904 million over the next five years, with an anticipated 1,214,000 people eligible for deferred immigration action. The tax consequences for the plaintiff states are also positive," Purcell wrote.
"For example, if the estimated 594,000 undocumented immigrants eligible for deferred action in Texas receive temporary work permits, it will lead to an estimated $338 million increase in the State tax base over five years," he added.
Not to be outdone by proponents of the policies, the American Center for Law & Justice, a Christian conservative law firm based in Washington, D.C. and appearing on behalf of 68 Republican Congressmen, asked the 5th Circuit on Wednesday for permission to chime in with their own amicus brief.
The firm's chief counsel Jay Sekulow repeated what the plaintiffs have said all along: that Obama's policy changes exceeded his authority and trampled "Congress's exclusive authority over immigration."
While Sekulow acknowledges that the Homeland Security Act makes the Department of Homeland Security's secretary responsible for immigration enforcement policies, he believes Obama's directives go beyond.
"The removal of unlawful aliens carries enormous importance to the overall statutory scheme, but the DHS directive does not just articulate priorities for removal, it grants legal benefits on a categorical basis to current illegal aliens. By granting illegal aliens lawful presence during the deferred period, appellants violate the express and implied intent of Congress," he wrote.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/0...t-in-obama.htm

"There is absolutely no basis for sanctions here," Hartnett said. "The government is absolutely trying to do the right thing."

There is absolutely nothing right about anything the government is trying to do here. There should absolutely be sanctions, and the Judge should rule promptly on the whole mess and determine it all illegal and promptly order the arrest of all these government criminals.

Originally Posted by Judy

The Judge should rule promptly on the whole mess and determine it all illegal and promptly order the arrest of all these government criminals.

Even stating that the emperor's minions lied or deliberately misled the judge would be a good thing. It'll be more difficult to ignore a single-issue ruling.
*************************************
Americans first in this magnificent country

American jobs for American workers

Fair trade, not free trade

Originally Posted by vistalad

Even stating that the emperor's minions lied or deliberately misled the judge would be a good thing. It'll be more difficult to ignore a single-issue ruling.
*************************************
Americans first in this magnificent country

American jobs for American workers

Fair trade, not free trade

Yes, of course it would, and I hope he does rule they lied.

So it looks like Kathleen Hartnett is the Obama administration's official liar.

It is clear to all with any objective thinking that most of what comes out of Obama's own mouth and his many minions are steady streams of nationally destructive and treasonous lies, lies, lies!

Lies lies lies yea!


W

I have an opposing presentation to the claim that all these tax dollars are going to just flow into the states coffers once the invaders are legalized.

Let us begin by showing respect for law by deporting all aliens that arrived here since 1959. Wait an appropriate amount of time to know exactly how our tax income is affected, how our welfare and benefits outlay is affected. Plus we will have a real statistic on how many jobs vs. Americans are available.

It is past time to stop government and courts from making decisions based upon guestimated statistics. It is time for us to install the "Sgt. Friday" rule and that is "Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts!"

It is absolutely foolhardy to make cold assumptions from estimates and pass laws based on assumption only supported by guestimates! America, it is time to stop being played for fools!

By The Editors — March 23, 2015

When federal judge Andrew Hanen, of the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Texas, issued an injunction temporarily blocking President Obama’s most recent executive amnesty as of February 16, he did not choose the date arbitrarily. To establish his timeline, Judge Hanen relied on claims by Department of Justice lawyers that the president’s Deferred Action for Parental Accountability (DAPA), issued in November, had not yet been implemented, and would not be until at least mid February. But early this month the government’s attorneys admitted that they misled Judge Hanen. Between November 20, when President Obama issued his fiat, and February 16, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) granted approximately 100,000 applications for deferred action under the expansion of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program created in DAPA.

Did the government’s lawyers lie? Or did they make a months-long mistake? That was the question posed to the DOJ’s legal team by a visibly angry Judge Hanen in a hearing in Brownsville, Texas, last Thursday.

Deputy Assistant Attorney General Kathleen Hartnett could not explain why multiple DOJ lawyers — herself included — told the court multiple times over two and a half months that DHS would not be accepting requests for deferred action under the challenged order until mid February. She implausibly claimed that the legal team thought the injunction request did not apply to the expansion of DACA under the president’s November order — despite the clear words of the states’ initial filings and explicit statements made in court.

It seems clear what Hanen thinks happened: “When I asked you what would happen and you said nothing, I took it to heart. I was made to look like an idiot,” Hanen told Hartnett. “I believed your word that nothing would happen. . . . Like an idiot, I believed that.”

If Hanen was, in fact, duped, he would not be the first one. This administration has been happy to employ dishonesty for political gain, and in Eric Holder’s wildly politicized Department of Justice, lawyers playing fast and loose with the truth would be no surprise. If the government’s attorneys did not willfully deceive, then the only credible alternative explanation is staggering incompetence — which should be alarming in its own right.

In light of this latest revelation, the plaintiffs — 26 states, led by Texas — have filed a discovery request for internal federal immigration documents, which Hanen appears inclined to grant. Additionally, he announced that he is contemplating sanctions against the DOJ, if he decides that its attorneys did, indeed, lie to the court. Hanen could issue an order rebuking the lawyers, which would be sent to the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), tasked with investigating ethics violations by DOJ lawyers, and to the state bar associations where the offending attorneys practice (the former probably would have no effect — OPR is run by Robin Ashton, a highly political Eric Holder protégé — but the latter might), and he could also strike one or more of the DOJ’s pleadings in the suit, narrowing the government’s legal options going forward.

Either decision would be significant for another reason. The government has appealed to the Fifth Circuit to stay Judge Hanen’s injunction, and the plaintiffs have yet to file a response. An order censuring the DOJ for its conduct would certainly be a part of that response, and would significantly hamper DOJ’s chances before the higher court.

In any case, the sanctions will hardly compensate for the cost already imposed by the federal government. As the plaintiffs’ attorney, Angela Colmenero, observed, since the new DACA applications are already granted, it is “virtually impossible to unscramble the egg.”

Indeed. If he finds that they sought to deceive, Judge Hanen should throw the book at the DOJ’s lawyers, and everyone watching should remember that, whether this was an intentional con or incompetence, it is — when it comes to this Justice Department, and this administration — all too typical.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...-hanen-editors

Sanctions can be levied against incompetence and the incompetent people can be barred from the court.