New York Times
By Julia Preston
May 26, 2015
A
federal appeals court on Tuesday denied the Obama administration’s
request to lift a hold on the president’s executive actions on
immigration, which would have granted protection
from deportation as well as work permits to millions of immigrants in
the country illegally.
Two
of three judges on a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, left in place an injunction by a
Federal District Court judge in Brownsville,
Tex. The ruling comes in a lawsuit filed by Texas and 25 other states
against actions President Obama took in November. Many of the
initiatives were scheduled to take effect this month.
The
appeals court found that the states had sufficient legal grounds to
bring the lawsuit and that the administration had not shown that it
would be harmed if the injunction remained
in place and the programs were further delayed.
Also
denied was a request by the administration to limit the injunction to
the states bringing the lawsuit. The ruling is a second setback for
programs the president hoped would
be a major piece of his legacy, raising new uncertainty about whether
they will take effect before the end of his term and casting doubts on
the confidence of administration lawyers that their case was very
strong.
The
lawsuit was filed in December, and on Feb. 16, Judge Andrew S. Hanen of
Federal District Court in Brownsville ordered a preliminary injunction
on the programs while he ruled
on the constitutional issues in the suit.
In
a statement, Ken Paxton, the attorney general of Texas, said Mr. Obama
had tried to impose “a drastic change in immigration policy” without the
consent of Congress. The appeals
court decision is “a victory for those committed to preserving the rule
of law in America,” Mr. Paxton said. “We will continue to fight the
brazen lawlessness that has become a trademark of the Obama
administration.”
White
House officials said the ruling was not surprising, but they declined
to discuss the next legal move for the administration.
“Today,
two judges of the Fifth Circuit chose to misrepresent the facts and the
law,” a White House spokeswoman, Brandi Hoffine, said. “The president’s
actions were designed to
bring greater accountability to our broken immigration system, grow the
economy and keep our communities safe. They are squarely within the
bounds of his authority, and they are the right thing to do for the
country.”
The
Justice Department could appeal the ruling on the emergency stay to the
full appeals court, but legal experts said it was more likely that the
administration would skip that
conservative court and ask the Supreme Court to allow the programs to
proceed.
The
legal wrangling suggests that Mr. Obama and his aides may have
underestimated the legal and political challenges to offering
protections to more than four million illegal immigrants
without a congressional vote.
In
the 70-page opinion, two judges wrote that Texas had shown it would
incur significant costs in issuing driver’s licenses to illegal
immigrants who would be allowed to stay in
the country. The judges, Jerry E. Smith and Jennifer Elrod, also
rejected the administration’s argument that the programs could not be
reviewed by the courts because they stemmed from policy decisions by the
president on how to enforce the immigration laws.
Judge Stephen A. Higginson disagreed. He wrote that the administration was “adhering to the law, not derogating from it.”
Immigrant
advocates supporting the president worried that the longer the
initiatives are held up, the harder it could be to persuade immigrants
to come forward to sign up.
Marielena
Hincapie, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center,
said that part of the intent of the lawsuit was “to delay, to confuse
and to instill fear” among immigrants.
“The consequences are devastating,” she said. “Our communities suffer
every single day.” She acknowledged that carrying out the programs would
be “a harder challenge for our communities” after long delays.
The
decision by the Fifth Circuit to leave the Texas judge’s injunction in
place does not necessarily mean the Obama administration will lose the
larger case. Aside from the emergency
stay, the Fifth Circuit is considering the administration’s appeal of
the injunction, which takes more time. The Fifth Circuit tentatively
scheduled oral arguments on the appeal the week of July 6.
Stephen
H. Legomsky, a professor of immigration law at Washington University,
said the appeals court panel had denied the administration’s request for
an emergency stay “because
it feels that a delay would cause no irreparable harm.” But he said,
“The panel that ultimately decides the appeal could well agree with the
government’s position and reverse Judge Hanen’s injunction.” Professor
Legomsky, formerly the top lawyer for the federal
immigration services agency, has submitted documents to the court
supporting the administration.
In
earlier opinions, Judge Hanen had been an unusually expressive critic
of the Obama administration’s immigration policies. In his decision to
impose the injunction, he said the
president’s initiatives amounted to an abdication of immigration
enforcement. The two appeals judges who upheld the injunction are also
conservatives.
Judge
Smith, who was nominated by President Ronald Reagan in 1987, sparred
publicly with Mr. Obama over the scope of judicial review during a case
involving the health care law
in 2012. Judge Elrod was nominated by President George W. Bush in 2007.
Judge Higginson was nominated by Mr. Obama in 2011.
Legal
analysts point to two other recent federal court rulings in similar
cases that favored the administration. In December, a federal judge in
Washington dismissed a lawsuit against
the president’s actions by Joe Arpaio, the outspoken sheriff of
Maricopa County, Ariz. The judge said the sheriff’s dispute with the
administration was political, not legal.
A
potentially more significant decision came on April 7 from judges on
the Fifth Circuit. They dismissed a lawsuit by federal immigration
agents against deportation protections Mr. Obama gave in 2012 to young undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children. The president used the same legal
justification for that program as he did for the recent initiatives.
The
appeals court found that the state in that lawsuit, Mississippi, had
failed to show that it would face any burdensome costs because of the
2012 program. The court also agreed
with the administration’s argument that the secretary of Homeland
Security has broad authority to decide how to enforce the immigration
laws.
The
Texas lawsuit has divided the country. While 26 states want to stop the
president’s initiatives, 14 states and the District of Columbia filed
papers in the appeals court saying
Texas and its allies had failed to consider the benefits the programs
would bring in increased tax revenues and economic growth.
For more information, go to: www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com
No comments:
Post a Comment