Politico
By Josh Gerstein
June 4, 2015
A
little more than a week after denying President Barack Obama's effort
to move forward with controversial executive actions on immigration, a
federal appeals court has
ordered both sides in the case to file new legal briefs.
The
order Thursday from the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals asked the
Justice Department and the 26 states challenging Obama's moves to file
legal briefs by June 18
offering views on the opinions a three-judge panel issued May 26. That
panel split, 2-1, rejecting the Obama Administration's request for an
emergency stay that would allow immigration authorities to move forward
with immigration policy changes blocked since
February by a district court's injunction.
The
5th Circuit has announced that a three-judge panel will hear arguments
in New Orleans on July 10 on the merits of the current appeal: whether
U.S. District Court Judge
Andrew Hanen's preliminary injunction should be upheld or lifted. The
injunction bars the Department of Homeland Security from implementing
Obama's plan to expand a program offering quasi-legal status and work
permits to illegal immigrants who arrived in the
U.S. as children and to start a new program for illegal immigrants who
are parents of U.S. citizens.
Some
immigration advocates earlier expressed concern that the three-judge
panel that considered the stay issue might try to tie the hands of the
three-judge panel that
will hear the merits of the injunction.
However,
supporters of Obama's actions said Thursday they were heartened by
wording in the new order that indicates the so-called merits panel does
not consider itself
obligated to adopt the reasoning of the panel that decided against a
stay.
"This
might indicate that the merits panel does not regard itself as being
bound by the reasoning of the May 26 motions panel decision," said
Stephen Legomsky, a Washington
University in St. Louis law professor.
"I
think that 5th circuit precedent pretty much gives the judges who’ll
hear the final appeal of the preliminary injunction the freedom to make
whatever decision they
deem appropriate, regardless of the motions panel's refusal to lift
Hanen’s order blocking the immigration executive actions," immigration
attorney David Leopold said. "Here the motions panel said, in effect,
that the government was unlikely to succeed on
the merits of its appeal -- but it didn't in fact make any conclusion
about the merits of the preliminary injunction—e.g. whether Hanen got it
right or wrong. [Last week's majority] opinion might be highly
persuasive to the panel that hears the final appeal
in July, but strictly speaking I don’t think it binds the panel that
will hear the full appeal."
The
new order refers to a 1997 case in which the 5th Circuit held that a
merits panel wasn't bound by an earlier motions panel, particularly on
the question of jurisdiction.
The
new order does seem to assuage another worry some immigrant rights
advocates had expressed that the same panel that heard the stay issue
might wind up ruling on the
substance of the dispute as well. The order doesn't name the panel
considering the merits of the appeal, but wouldn't make much sense if it
was the same set of judges.
The
Obama Administration passed up a chance to ask the Supreme Court to
issue the stay the 5th Circuit refused to grant last week. The White
House's best hope in the short-term
may be to get a Democratic-leaning panel for the argument next month.
The odds don't favor that with the 5th Circuit's active bench split 2-1
Republican versus Democrat, making it the most conservative appeals
court in the country.
Spokespeople
for the Justice Department and for the Texas Attorney General's office,
which is leading the lawsuit against the immigration moves, did not
immediately respond
to requests for comment on the new order.
In
a somewhat related development, the House voted Wednesday in support of
an amendment that would bar funding for the Justice Department's
defense of the pending appeal
as well as the underlying lawsuit.
For more information, go to: www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com



No comments:
Post a Comment