Immigration Ruling Leaves Millions in Limbo; Obama to Appeal

Wall Street Journal

By Nathan Koppel and Laura Meckler                        

February 17, 2015

Immigration Ruling Leaves Millions in Limbo; Obama to Appeal 

A federal judge’s decision to temporarily block the Obama administration’s immigration actions delivered a first-round victory to Republican opponents, while leaving an estimated four million illegal immigrants who were set to be shielded from deportation in limbo.

The Obama administration said it would appeal the ruling by U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen, of Brownsville, Texas, who was appointed by former President George W. Bush , a Republican. It freezes immigration actions issued by President Barack Obama, which were challenged as unconstitutional in a lawsuit filed by Texas and 25 other states. The case hasn’t been litigated on its merits.

Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said Tuesday that, pending the appeal, the department wouldn’t begin accepting applications for an expanded program to stave off deportations on Wednesday as planned.

Immigration-rights activists said they were confident the Obama administration would prevail in the suit, either right away at the appeals court level or when the merits of the matter are considered.

Republicans, who have been struggling to block the executive actions through legislation, welcomed the ruling.

“The president said 22 times he did not have the authority to take the very action on immigration he eventually did, so it is no surprise that at least one court has agreed,” House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) said in a statement Tuesday.

The judge said the administration had violated the Administrative Procedure Act. Attorneys for immigration-rights groups said the issue involves whether the Obama administration had a duty to post the proposed policy for a required period of time before issuing it.

The White House defended the executive action as within the president’s legal authority, and said the U.S. Supreme Court and Congress have established that federal officials can establish priorities in enforcing immigration laws.

“The district court’s decision wrongly prevents these lawful, common-sense policies from taking effect, and the Department of Justice has indicated that it will appeal that decision,” the White House said.

The president’s executive action, announced in November, featured numerous components, some of which are unaffected by the ruling. But the temporary injunction puts on hold the most controversial and consequential portions: two programs that allow certain undocumented immigrants a temporary reprieve from deportation and the chance to apply for work permits.

A federal judge in Texas issued an order temporarily blocking a federal immigration program that would have potentially shielded millions from deportation. Why? WSJ’s Jason Bellini has #TheShortAnswer.

The ruling blocks a new program called Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, which was set to take effect in the spring. It would affect an estimated four million people who have been in the country since 2010, are not considered an enforcement priority, and have a son or daughter who was a U.S. citizen or permanent resident as of last year.

The ruling also halts an expansion of the 2012 program called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, which allows relief for people brought to the U.S. as children.

The government was set to begin accepting applications for the expansion on Wednesday, and the last-minute stop left some immigrants frustrated on Tuesday.

“I was very devastated,” said Francisco Dominguez, 20, of Phoenix, who had been planning to apply for the expanded DACA program. He came from Mexico with his parents when he was 5 years old and stayed in the U.S. after the family’s visa’s expired. “That was the beacon of hope, and then all of a sudden, it hasn’t disappeared, but let’s just say the light got a little darker.”

Judge Hanen’s order called for the parties to meet again on Feb. 27 and discuss how to proceed with the lawsuit.

“This injunction makes it clear that the president is not a law unto himself, and must work with our elected leaders in Congress and satisfy the courts in a fashion our founding fathers envisioned,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a statement late Monday.

A spokesman for the Justice Department declined further comment. The department is expected to seek an emergency stay of the ruling while it pursues an appeal at the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The decision leaves families that would qualify for the Obama program in legal limbo at a time when immigration-rights groups have been urging people to apply.

Debbie Smith, associate general counsel for the Service Employees International Union, said families should continue to prepare applications on the assumption that the program will eventually be upheld.

“Our message to our families is ‘don’t panic, keep preparing, keep gathering documents,’ ” she said. “We think this is a time out, a bump in the road. It’s not the end of the game.”

Melissa Crow, legal director of the American Immigration Council, said the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals could hear an appeal of the ruling within weeks and that Judge Hanen could address the merits of the lawsuit within several months.

In Congress, the ruling could scramble calculations over a related issue—funding for the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees immigration among other matters. Late last year, Republicans angry about the immigration orders agreed to fund the agency only through Feb. 27, in hopes of pressuring the White House to back down on its unilateral actions.

The House approved a funding bill that included language nullifying a string of Obama immigration policies. That bill was blocked in the Senate by Democrats, leaving majority Republicans uncertain how to move forward. GOP leaders have said they don’t want to cut off funding for the agency.

One possibility is that Congress will approve another short-term funding bill for the department. Some conservatives have resisted that move, but the court ruling might persuade them to allow the agency to operate while the case is further considered.

Still, there is no guarantee the ruling will stand. Some legal experts have said the lawsuit has little chance on the merits, as courts have established immigration as a federal, not state, concern.

Judge Hanen was appointed by Mr. Bush in 2002, and has served as a federal judge in the border town of Brownsville for about 13 years. In that time, he has handled a steady diet of immigration suits and criminal cases involving drugs and human smuggling, and has previously criticized the Obama administration’s enforcement of immigration laws.

In a 2013 case involving an attempt to smuggle a 10-year-old girl from El Salvador, Judge Hansen criticized the Department of Homeland Security for what he saw as lax prosecution of human smuggling in a number of cases. The department “has simply chosen not to enforce the United States’ border security laws,” he wrote.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, formerly the state’s attorney general, has said the state believed it has the right to challenge the ruling because it stands at the “epicenter” of illegal immigration into the country, and Mr. Obama’s actions would require the state to spend money providing public services to illegal immigrants.

In addition to Texas, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit include attorneys general and governors from many states in the South and Midwest, and a few in the North.

California and New York filed briefs siding with the Obama administration, as did the mayors of 30-some cities, including Los Angeles and New York.

For more information, go to:  www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com