NPR
By Richard Gonzales
April 17, 2015
A
federal appeals court in New Orleans heard oral arguments in a case
that could determine the viability of President Obama's plan to
temporarily shield more than 4 million
undocumented immigrants from deportation and issue them work permits.
At stake is whether the president will get to implement his plan before his term expires.
In
a rare hearing before a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals, government lawyers asked the judges to issue an emergency
stay of the February ruling
by U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen. Such requests are usually confined
to written briefs. Each side was allotted an hour to argue — twice as
much as is generally heard in a Supreme Court case.
Hanen,
based in Texas, had ruled the president had overstepped his authority
and violated the law governing administrative procedures in announcing
his executive action
on immigration back in November. Judge Hanen also said that the state
of Texas would incur costs associated with issuing driver's licenses to
immigrants who gained legal status.
Texas is leading a 26-state coalition suing to challenge the president's executive action.
Arguing
for the Justice Department, Benjamin Mizer said Texas had no standing
because immigration policy is set by the federal government.
"If
Texas is right, it could challenge an individual's right to seek
asylum," Mizer said. "The states do not have standing in the downstream
effects of a federal immigration
policy."
But
Texas Solicitor General Scott Keller argued that his state does have a
stake in immigration policy. In a statement issued after the more than
two-hour hearing, Texas
Attorney General Ken Paxton said:
"President
Obama's executive amnesty program would grant legal status to
individuals who are unlawfully in this country, making them eligible for
benefits under federal
and state programs. These benefits include work permits, tax credits,
Social Security, Medicare, driver's licenses, unemployment insurance and
the right to international travel."
Attorneys
for both sides were frequently questioned by two of three panelists.
Judge Jennifer Elrod, a George W. Bush appointee, appeared skeptical of
the administration's
defense of the President's executive action. Similarly, Obama appointee
Judge Stephen Higginson appeared more open to the government's
arguments.
A
third judge, Jerry Smith, a Reagan appointee, was mostly silent
throughout the hearing, according to Marielena Hincapie, Executive
Director of the National Immigration
Law Center, who attended the hearing. Her group supports Obama's
executive action.
The sounds of several hundred immigration activists protesting outside could be heard from inside the courtroom.
Going
into this hearing, many court watchers had noted that the
administration could face a tough time since the 5th U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals is considered the most
conservative appellate court in the country.
The judges did not rule. A decision is not generally expected for another few weeks.
The
hearing is only one act in the legal drama over the president's
immigration plan. If the panel rules against the president, his
administration could request an en
banc hearing or take an appeal to the Supreme Court.
Hanen
is still scheduled to hold a trial on the constitutionality of Obama's
executive action. The administration would certainly appeal an adverse
ruling from a judge
who has already thrown one roadblock in front of the president's plan.
Ultimately, time may not be on President Obama's side, says Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond.
"All
of this legal jousting will probably consume many months and may well
run out the clock, as the Obama Administration draws to a close," said
Tobias.
For more information, go to: www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com
No comments:
Post a Comment