JUST IN: Texas AG Ken Paxton asks federal judge to declare DACA illegal and stop feds - Page 9

Hanen didn’t do shit last time and he won’t again this time

The arguments are completely different. The argument in the 5th circuit is that DACA is not constitutional. The other circuits that issued an injection to allow DACA renewals is on the basis of rescission of the DACA program.

That being said, if the 5th circuit says DACA is unconstitutional, then it doesn't matter if the rescission is correctly done or not. Therefore, if the 5th circuit issues an injunction, then the injunction from the other courts allowing you to renew is in jeopardy, as the 5th circuit tackles the "core" of the issue. It doesn't care if DACA was rescinded correctly or not. It says DACA is unconstitutional.

With you to the end, gurl.

Lets go to the Argument section
I. A. I agree, but it is irrelevant
I. B. Nope, it does not present a case for controversy.
I. C. They do not have standing. This was argued over and over and over again. Their argument is that they have to give us driver licenses and this is costing Texas - Texans extra money. That DACA is hurting the Texas's economy! That they have to pay higher health care and education costs because of DACA.
II. A. WRONG. DACA went through the proper steps. The only reason eDACA and DAPA did not hold was because they did not go through the proper steps.
II B. Their argument will not hold. Why? Look at II.B.2. They contradict themselves when they say " Even if DACA did pass Chevron's first step, it would not pass the second" when in II.B.1 they state " DACA does not pass Chevron's first step because..." This will not hold in any court.. .
Look at II.B.3 ... Again DAPA did not go through the proper steps like DACA did! How many times do I have to repeat that? And II.B.4 is laughable! There are many cases when the U.S. government gave procedural discretion...

So there! They do not bring on any new arguments.

I think this time it's different.

If you read Hanen's 117-page motion against the injunction, he really does two things:

1) Deny the preliminary injunction because the plaintiff's arguments were all over the place as to why they deserve an injunction

2) Spell out in excruciating detail a host of other reasons why DACA should be ended since it was never implemented properly in the first place

Essentially he threw to the plaintiffs a bone -- they made bad arguments the first time so he couldn't issue an ironclad judgment based on the facts that they brought up. Instead he outlined a completely different strategy that should be taken. I believe that a judge & plaintiff can't communicate about a legal strategy outside of the filing which is why it's taken months to get to this point after the initial ruling.

I’m not challenging your knowledge but if what you say is accurate... why would Trump get fixated on the Supreme Court when Hannen himself can nail DACA? Are you telling me that Stephen Miller and Jeff Sessions didn’t inform him of this?

Paxton just wants an injunction now, which is different than just a ruling. As previously mentioned, the judge said DACA was most likely unconstitutional but didn't issue an injunction. If the injunction is issued at paxton's request, it would take precedent over the other injunctions because this deals with the "core" constitutionality of DACA.

Fine! As I said, I agree with their first argument that this case and the other case are not tied together, and that he can rule on this case separate from the other case. However, it can still be appealed one way or another. And the arguments that they present are the same old arguments we heard over and over again. There is nothing new over here.

The guy has trouble stringing two coherent thoughts together. Do you really think he understands the nuances behind a circuit split?

Also, this motion for summary judgment did kind of come out of left field.

Trump can end DACA by rescinding it properly. If something was done through executive action, it can be done through executive action.

I think he thinks that the supreme court will rule if DACA is constitutional or not. This would prevent executive action in the future.