5th Circuit Issues Unfavorable Ruling to Obamas Deferred Immigration Plan

[NotreDame]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/11/10/appeals-court-affirms-lower-court-ruling-against-obama-administration-immigration-policies/

A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has affirmed a federal district court’s nationwide injunction against the Obama administration’s Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) program in Texas v. United States.

Judge Jerry Smith (joined by Judge Jennifer Elrod) concluded that the states had standing to challenge DAPA and were likely to succeed on both their procedural and substantive claims. Among other things, Judge Smith concluded that DAPA is not authorized under existing law, nor is it justified by historical practice.

From the majority opinion:
DAPA would make 4.3 million otherwise removable aliens eligible for lawful presence, employment authorization, and associated benefits, and “we must be guided to a degree by common sense as to the manner in which Congress is likely to delegate a policy decision of such economic and political magnitude to an administrative agency.” DAPA undoubtedly implicates “question of deep ‘economic and political significance’ that [are] central to this statutory scheme; had Congress wished to assign that decision to an agency, it surely would have done so expressly.” [FN: King v. Burwell] But assuming arguendo that Chevron applies and that Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at hand, we would still strike down DAPA as an unreasonable interpretation that is “manifestly contrary” to the INA. . . .​​

I particularly like the outcome, however, I have not read the entire case yet and so I do not know whether arguments by the majority/dissent are strong/weak in support/against the decision made by the majority.

 

[ttwtt78640]

While I agree that the law was intended to be enforced "equally" (and as written) it is also obvious that 5K ICE agents have absolutely no realistic chance of dealing with 12 million illegal aliens. Neither congress nor the POTUS are acting reasonably or responsibly to protect the states from an invasion of illegal aliens. Selective enforcement is guaranteed by the current federal immigration law coupled with its current level of enforcement funding.

 

[NotreDame]

While I agree that the law was intended to be enforced "equally" (and as written) it is also obvious that 5K ICE agents have absolutely no realistic chance of dealing with 12 million illegal aliens. Neither congress nor the POTUS are acting reasonably or responsibly to protect the states from an invasion of illegal aliens. Selective enforcement is guaranteed by the current federal immigration law coupled with its current level of enforcement funding.

Your view of selective enforcement is legally cognizable. The issue here is whether the Obama Administration's actions constitute as selective enforcement.

 

[eohrnberger]

So what of all the illegal aliens that have had their status changed due to EO while it was in effect?

As cynical as it may sound, Obama may have very well already understood that his EO wouldn't stand up in court, but also knew that there would take time for the issue to ruled on by a court, only to be struck down. Hasn't the intent of the EO already been fulfilled and it doesn't matter that it's now struck down?

 

[Dittohead not!]

While I agree that the law was intended to be enforced "equally" (and as written) it is also obvious that 5K ICE agents have absolutely no realistic chance of dealing with 12 million illegal aliens. Neither congress nor the POTUS are acting reasonably or responsibly to protect the states from an invasion of illegal aliens. Selective enforcement is guaranteed by the current federal immigration law coupled with its current level of enforcement funding.

Exactly. In other words, nothing much has changed since the Eisenhower Administration in regard to illegal immigration, nothing is likely to change any time in the near future, and the so called "solutions" to the problem (rounding up millions of illegals, building a border fence) are just so much hot air from the largest generator of hot air in the country, Washington DC.

 

[NotreDame]

So what of all the illegal aliens that have had their status changed due to EO while it was in effect?

As cynical as it may sound, Obama may have very well already understood that his EO wouldn't stand up in court, but also knew that there would take time for the issue to ruled on by a court, only to be struck down. Hasn't the intent of the EO already been fulfilled and it doesn't matter that it's now struck down?

Doubtful. The lower district court entered an injunction precluding the government from following Obama's EO. At the time the injunction was issued the EO had not yet been implemented, i.e. was not yet being followed by ICE.

 

[NotreDame]

Exactly. In other words, nothing much has changed since the Eisenhower Administration in regard to illegal immigration, nothing is likely to change any time in the near future, and the so called "solutions" to the problem (rounding up millions of illegals, building a border fence) are just so much hot air from the largest generator of hot air in the country, Washington DC.

Fantastic bloviating about anything other than the issue. The issue, broadly, is the legality of the EO and the persuasiveness of the 5th Circuit decision. But please do not allow me to be an impediment to your red herring soap box.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Your view of selective enforcement is legally cognizable. The issue here is whether the Obama Administration's actions constitute as selective enforcement.

It sounds very selective to me and that will likely be the basis used to try to defend it. Even more troubling, IMHO, is the ability of the SCOTUS to not decide to hear a case which essentially is deciding in favor of the highest (lower) court decision thus far.

The federal immigration law is clearly not being enforced but what, exactly, can a court really do about it? Should the court mandate taking all immigration cases on a "first come, first served" basis or continue allowing an executive defined priority scheme to be used? Either way, the states are getting screwed since the vast majority of illegal aliens are simply left alone and costing the states money.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Exactly. In other words, nothing much has changed since the Eisenhower Administration in regard to illegal immigration, nothing is likely to change any time in the near future, and the so called "solutions" to the problem (rounding up millions of illegals, building a border fence) are just so much hot air from the largest generator of hot air in the country, Washington DC.

We have added considerably to the "free" stuff that government (at all levels) provides, including many new federal mandates on state/local spending - the illegal immigration magnetic field has been increased.

 

[NotreDame]

The federal immigration law is clearly not being enforced but what, exactly, can a court really do about it? Should the court mandate taking all immigration cases on a "first come, first served" basis or continue allowing an executive defined priority scheme to be used? Either way, the states are getting screwed since the vast majority of illegal aliens are simply left alone and costing the states money.

It sounds very selective to me and that will likely be the basis used to try to defend it.

What about the EO, at issue in this 5th Circuit decision, "sounds very selective" to you?

Even more troubling, IMHO, is the ability of the SCOTUS to not decide to hear a case which essentially is deciding in favor of the highest (lower) court decision thus far.

This is troubling? This is how the appellate process has operated in the U.S. since the inception of the Republic under the U.S. Constitution. Should the Court grant every Writ of Cert. filed with the Court?

The federal immigration law is clearly not being enforced but what, exactly, can a court really do about it? Should the court mandate taking all immigration cases on a "first come, first served" basis or continue allowing an executive defined priority scheme to be used? Either way, the states are getting screwed since the vast majority of illegal aliens are simply left alone and costing the states money

Well, the judiciary can find the EO is not a sufficient case by case process but is instead a general policy of non-enforcement foreclosing the exercise of case by case decision making. This result would then resort matters back to the status quo and then necessitate the Obama Administration espouse an EO which is compliant with the law, i.e. an EO which is a case by case basis. (FYI, this is not stating an opinion on the issue itself but rather merely answering your question of what the judiciary could do/can do in a hypothetical context to so answer your query).

 

[eohrnberger]

Doubtful. The lower district court entered an injunction precluding the government from following Obama's EO. At the time the injunction was issued the EO had not yet been implemented, i.e. was not yet being followed by ICE.

I suppose that's the good news then. Also bring to light that this was little more than political point scoring with a favored constituency without substance by Obama. He must surely have realized that it was overreach for an EO.

 

[NotreDame]

I need to note the 5th Circuit decision was merely to affirm the trial court's injunction of DAPA. Whether DAPA is indeed lawful has yet to be determined by the trial court and presumably there will be a trial/hearing regarding the legality of DAPA at the trial court level.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Fantastic bloviating about anything other than the issue. The issue, broadly, is the legality of the EO and the persuasiveness of the 5th Circuit decision. But please do not allow me to be an impediment to your red herring soap box.

I see. So, the issue is not about illegal immigration, but about whether the POTUS can issue executive orders.

I don't see that one changing any time soon, either, regardless of the ruling in question.

 

[NotreDame]

I see. So, the issue is not about illegal immigration, but about whether the POTUS can issue executive orders.

I don't see that one changing any time soon, either, regardless of the ruling in question.

I see. So, the issue is not about illegal immigration, but about whether the POTUS can issue executive orders.

The statement above is not correct. When, should, you ever venture an opinion about the issue(s) presented in the OP, perhaps a more constructive dialogue can occur.