Washington Times
By Stephen Dinan
May 3, 2015
The
Justice Department checked with the White House before informing a
federal judge that it was already carrying out part of President Obama’s
immigration amnesty, administration
attorneys revealed in documents filed in court late last week as they
tried to head off a judicial spanking.
The
attorneys turned over the communications with the White House to Judge
Andrew S. Hanen, who is hearing the major case challenging Mr. Obama’s
2014 deportation amnesty,
but the lawyers pleaded with the court not to look at the documents on
grounds that it would intrude on the president’s powers.
Still,
the revelation that the White House was looped in suggests officials
knew the seriousness of the error in not informing Judge Hanen earlier
that the Homeland Security
Department was already carrying out part of Mr. Obama’s amnesty by
granting three-year work permits to illegal immigrants who qualified
under the 2012 policy.
“The
Department of Justice and the White House counsel’s office sometimes
confer regarding civil litigation that impacts high-priority policy
initiatives of the administration,”
the attorneys said in a 34-page brief filed Friday that repeatedly
apologized for misleading the court, while insisting it wasn’t
intentional.
In
documents filed with the court, the attorneys said more than 1,500
Homeland Security employees knew the three-year part of the amnesty was
in effect as of November.
The
Justice Department attorneys are trying to avoid a reprimand from Judge
Hanen, who has expressed surprise that the administration was carrying
out any part of the
amnesty, despite telling him in both filings and during a hearing that
the amnesty program wouldn’t begin until February.
Judge
Hanen issued an injunction blocking the full amnesty on Feb. 16, two
days before it was to take effect. The administration two weeks later
informed the judge that
it already was carrying out a part of the amnesty.
“We
sincerely regret the misunderstanding that the government’s statements
inadvertently caused, and hope that this submission fully resolves the
issue,” the administration
said in its brief.
Texas
Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is leading the challenge against Mr.
Obama’s amnesty, said the government failed to turn over anything of
value and was ignoring
the court’s orders.
“Not
only does the Obama administration deny the coalition of 26 suing
states the opportunity to review documents about how the DOJ
misrepresented the early implementation
of its executive amnesty program, it also suggests that the judge
himself should not review those documents,” Mr. Paxton said.
“Regardless, we will continue to fight for the rule of law by asking the
district court to carefully review the administration’s
withheld documents and hold the DOJ accountable so they provide
reliable information about this case, both to the court and to the
states.”
Texas
has asked for limited discovery in the case to try to figure out how
seriously it should treat the government’s behavior. Judge Hanen now has
those documents and
will have to decide what to make public.
The
fight is over one small part of the series of actions Mr. Obama
announced in November when he expanded his policies granting deportation
amnesty to illegal immigrants.
His
2012 amnesty for so-called Dreamers granted them legal status and work
permits good for two years. In November, Mr. Obama expanded the status
and eligibility to three
years. The court says it wasn’t told about the three-year expansion.
“Whether
by ignorance, omission, purposeful misdirection, or because they were
misled by their clients, the attorneys for the government misrepresented
the facts,” the
judge said last month, adding that he was stunned the government waited
two weeks after his ruling to inform him that the applications already
had been processed.
Texas
has argued that had it known applications were being processed, it
would have taken extra legal steps to try to halt the program earlier.
Judge
Hanen is considering whether to issue sanctions against the Obama
administration — though he has said he won’t strike the government’s
pleadings, which essentially
would have erased the administration’s defense and granted victory by
default to Texas. Judge Hanen said that while that may have been
warranted, it would be a disservice to the weighty issues at stake in
the case, including fundamental issues of presidential
power.
For more information, go to: www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com
No comments:
Post a Comment