About Me

My photo
Beverly Hills, California, United States
Eli Kantor is a labor, employment and immigration law attorney. He has been practicing labor, employment and immigration law for more than 36 years. He has been featured in articles about labor, employment and immigration law in the L.A. Times, Business Week.com and Daily Variety. He is a regular columnist for the Daily Journal. Telephone (310)274-8216; eli@elikantorlaw.com. For more information, visit beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com and and beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com

Translate

Tuesday, May 05, 2015

U. S. Appeals Court Skeptical on Arizona Sheriff's Immigration Lawsuit

Reuters
By Lindsay Dunsmuir
May 4, 2015

A federal appeals court on Monday appeared to cast doubt on an Arizona sheriff's lawsuit that contends President Barack Obama's executive actions on immigration are unconstitutional.

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio sued President Obama in November, the same day Obama announced unilateral steps to ease the threat of deportation for about 4.7 million undocumented immigrants.

Two of the three judges weighing the case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit signaled some agreement with a D.C. federal judge who ruled in late December that Arpaio lacked standing to sue, a provision in U.S. law that means he has to prove he has been directly harmed.

Arpaio contends that his office has been harmed because, among other reasons, there are criminals who would not be deported in the country as a result.

"I wasn't entirely clear ... there is no suspension of deportation with respect to those people," Judge Nina Pillard, an Obama appointee, said to Arpaio's lawyer Larry Klayman.

They are more likely to be deported, she added.

Judge Sri Srinivasan, also appointed by Obama, took a similar line, saying the executive actions "don't purport to relax anything to do with criminals."

Disputing that notion, Klayman said, "Only the most severe criminals are deported.

Judge Janice Brown, appointed by President George W. Bush, said it was "difficult to pin down" Arpaio's legal argument for grounds to sue but also questioned the government's motion to dismiss.

"I think the question for me here is one argument might be if you didn't make it so attractive ... maybe less people would come, maybe more people would self deport," Brown said.

Arpaio, long known for his get-tough approach on U.S. immigration, admitted civil contempt charges in a Phoenix federal court two weeks ago after failing to comply with several court orders banning his police force from racially profiling immigrants.

In a more substantive challenge, a Texas federal court judge, at the urging of 26 states, in February issued an injunction blocking the Obama administration's actions, which remains in place.

The U.S. government's appeal is currently with the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the litigation could ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.


The case is Joseph Arpaio v. Barack Obama, et al., U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, No. 14-5325.

For more information, go to:  www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com

No comments: