JUST IN: Texas AG Ken Paxton asks federal judge to declare DACA illegal and stop feds - Page 10

Miller and Sessions are not stupid. But oh well, it is what it is. Good luck everyone.

The judge, Andrew S. Hanen of the Federal District Court in Houston, said the program, known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, had been relied upon by hundreds of thousands of immigrants since it was established almost six years ago, and should not be abruptly ended.

The Texas judge, who in 2015 blocked a similar effort by Mr. Obama that would have added protections for the undocumented parents of citizens and other lawful residents, compared the idea of ending the DACA program to an attempt to “unscramble” an egg.

“Here, the egg has been scrambled,” Judge Hanen wrote. “To try to put it back in the shell with only a preliminary injunction record, and perhaps at great risk to many, does not make sense nor serve the best interests of this country.”

“The reality of the situation is that it conferred lawful presence and numerous other benefits, and many DACA recipients and others nationwide have relied upon it for the last six years,” Judge Hanen wrote.

He also added that “DACA is a popular program and one that Congress should consider saving.”


You all forget stuff so easily and want to be doomsday prophets so bad lol

There’s a reason no new outlets or progressive orgs are picking up on this, it’s all bullshit political show

Yes, it can be appealed to the Supreme Court. The difference is if there's an injunction or not. If he makes a ruling, it can be appealed. But if he issues an injunction with his ruling, then that's law until the Supreme Court issues a decision. That means, if an injunction is issued with the ruling, you might not have DACA protection until the Supreme Court rules on it. It depends on what the injunction says or does. As mentioned, it can completely halt daca, it can not allow more renewals, it can force people to expire on the same date, etc.

I agree with you. However, this is a conservative judge that does not really like us that much...

The judge, Andrew S. Hanen of the Federal District Court in Houston, said the program, known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, had been relied upon by hundreds of thousands of immigrants since it was established almost six years ago, and should not be abruptly ended.

The Texas judge, who in 2015 blocked a similar effort by Mr. Obama that would have added protections for the undocumented parents of citizens and other lawful residents, compared the idea of ending the DACA program to an attempt to “unscramble” an egg.

“Here, the egg has been scrambled,” Judge Hanen wrote. “To try to put it back in the shell with only a preliminary injunction record, and perhaps at great risk to many, does not make sense nor serve the best interests of this country.”

“The reality of the situation is that it conferred lawful presence and numerous other benefits, and many DACA recipients and others nationwide have relied upon it for the last six years,” Judge Hanen wrote.

He also added that “DACA is a popular program and one that Congress should consider saving.”

People are giving you really well though out reasons for concern. Don’t get caught unprepared. Use this time to get your shit together and make a plan b if you haven’t done so already Eva.

The following is the definition of a preliminary injunction. What is the irreparable harm that Texas will suffer on a program that has been going on for the last 6 years? The evidence show the contrary that DACA benefits the economy! Total none sense... I will be shocked if he issues a preliminary injunction!

"Definition
A preliminary injunction is an injunction that may be granted before or during trial, with the goal of preserving the status quo before final judgment.

Overview
To get a preliminary injunction, a party must show that they will suffer irreparable harm unless the injunction is issued. Preliminary injunctions may only be issued after a hearing. When determining whether to grant preliminary injunctions, judges consider the extent of the irreparable harm, each party's likelihood of prevailing at trial, and any other public or private interests implicated by the injunction. Parties may appeal the judge's decisions on whether to award a preliminary injunction.

In Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc, 555 U.S. 7 (200, the Supreme Court described the balancing test for whether a preliminary injunction is appropriate. A court needs to examine whether the plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, whether the plaintiff is likely to suffer irreparable harm without the injunction, whether the balance of equities and hardships is in the plaintiff's favor, and whether an injunction is in the public interest."

Exactly there won’t be a preliminary injunction. If anything SCOTUS will rule on the issue before Hanen...

You go and make a plan B! Some people fucking had it with this fear mongering that goes on in this forum. There is NOTHING new in this Texas case. Tell me ONE new argument that they have. They freaking contradict themselves right and left. What is the basis for a preliminary injunction on a program that has been going on for the last 6 years?! Tell me! What is it? There is none! Enough with the fear mongering!