Washington Post (Right Turn)
By Jennifer Rubin
May 26, 2016
The
Associated Press reports: “A federal appeals court refused Tuesday to
lift a temporary hold on President Barack Obama’s executive action that
could shield as many as 5 million
immigrants illegally living in the U.S. from deportation. The U.S.
Justice Department had asked the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to
reverse a Texas judge who agreed to temporarily block the president’s
plan in February, after 26 states filed a lawsuit
alleging Obama’s action was unconstitutional. But two out of three
judges on a court panel voted to deny the government’s request.”
While
not a ruling on the merits, the court’s ruling required a finding that
it was not likely the administration would succeed on the merits.
“Without
regard to whether the content of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) would be a wise policy
if enacted by Congress, it is
an incredibly far-reaching and questionable assertion of unilateral
power by President Obama, especially since Obama denied he had that
power several times in the years leading up to his reversal of course,”
comments Todd Gaziano of the Pacific Legal Foundation.
“Two federal courts now agree with President Obama’s initial view that
his DAPA policy is illegal.” Specifically, the federal district court
and a majority of the appellate court have now held, Gaziano points out:
“(a) the 26-state challenge to DAPA is judicially
reviewable, (b) that the 26-state challenge is likely to succeed in
striking it down, and (c) that it is necessary to order the
administration to stop the DAPA program to prevent irreparable injury to
the states, or at least one of them (Texas).”
At
the heart of a ruling is a finding that the president laid down a
blanket rule that confers benefits; he did not merely announce a
decision to refrain from enforcement on a case-by-case
basis. The court found: “DAPA modifies substantive rights and
interests—conferring lawful presence on 500,000 illegal aliens in Texas
forces the state to choose between spending millions of dollars to
subsidize driver’s licenses and changing its law.” In rebuking
the administration and adhering to a nationwide injunction, the court
affirms critics’ argument that the president overstepped his legal
authority. It is a victory for the rule of law and executive restraint.
“I think it is unlikely that five justices of the
Supreme Court will lift the stay and allow the administration to
proceed prior to the district court’s final ruling on the merits,”
Gaziano says. “Thus, it is quite possible the DAPA program will remain
enjoined for the remainder of Obama’s presidency.”
One
of the president’s major “accomplishments” is effectively voided, a
proper result for a president who promulgated the notion that if
Congress didn’t act he had a right to. He
doesn’t. By wiping the slate clean, the court allows this president or
the next to work in concert with Congress to enact meaningful
immigration reform. House Republicans would be well advised to pass
something while the GOP has majorities in both houses.
For more information, go to: www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com
No comments:
Post a Comment