Justice Department appeals federal judge's hold on Obama's immigration action

DACA-IR-DA · 03-31-2015, 03:04 AM

WASHINGTON – The Justice Department urged a federal appeals court Monday to reverse a hold a judge placed on President Barack Obama's immigration executive action.

The 69-page brief was filed with the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ahead of arguments scheduled for next month.

Lawyers for the federal government are challenging a preliminary injunction issued in February by a federal judge in Brownsville, Texas. That decision placed on hold an executive action that could spare from deportation as many as 5 million people who are in the U.S. illegally.

Justice Department lawyers say in the new court filing that the federal government has unique authority to enforce the nation's immigration laws and to use its limited resources to exercise discretion during the deportation process, including by deferring removal of certain groups of immigrants, such as those who do not pose a public safety threat.

The executive action was challenged by a coalition of 26 states, led by Texas, who argued that the move was unconstitutional. The states have said they will suffer irreversible economic harm if the injunction is lifted. But the Justice Department says the states have failed to show exactly how they would be negatively affected by the executive action.

A court hearing has been set for April 17.

The other states seeking to block Obama's orders are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...ration-action/

Pianoswithoutfaith · 03-31-2015, 03:45 AM

kinda old news no?

freshh. · 03-31-2015, 05:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pianoswithoutfaith

kinda old news no?

No, this is new. The federal government has filed their response, which will be available for us to read online at some point.

Shootingstars2014 · 03-31-2015, 11:00 AM

Here is the court paper:
http://www.justice.gov/sites/default...s_pi_brief.pdf

dado123 · 03-31-2015, 02:12 PM

who is the lawyer wiz here? Let us have your interpretation,,, not being lazy just at work...

zone2oo0 · 03-31-2015, 09:16 PM

that state list, should be a hit list.

dtrt09 · 03-31-2015, 11:38 PM

Cliff's Notes version:

Quote:

The court’s findings in Arpaio contradict the district court’s perception of how
the 2012 DACA guidelines have been implemented. The Arpaio court held: (1) that
the Secretary retained discretion under the 2012 DACA guidelines to consider each
request for deferred action on a case-by-case basis; (2) that decisions were based on a
balancing of a number of factors; and (3) that statistics on the approval and denial of

The district court reasoned that the high approval rates under the 2012 DACA
guidelines (which are not at issue here) indicate that the agency’s assertion of
discretion under the 2014 Guidance is pretextual. ROA.4483-4484. But the eligibility
criteria in the 2014 Guidance had not gone into effect at the time the court issued its
preliminary injunction. There is thus no record of prior administrative practice under
Case: 15-40238 Document: 00512986669 Page: 53 Date Filed: 03/30/2015
44 the guidelines set forth in the 2014 Guidance. The reviewing court cannot disregard
official statements of the agency’s intent on the basis of mere speculation about the
agency’s future conduct.

deferred action under the 2012 DACA guidelines showed that case-by-case review
does occur in practice. 27 F. Supp. 3d 185, 193-94. Record evidence below supports
the same conclusion. See ROA.4146-4149 (DHS official citing instances where
deferred action was not accorded to aliens who met the threshold guideline criteria
where the alien was affiliated with a gang, had made false statements in immigration
petitions or applications, had a series of arrests but no disqualifying conviction, or was
otherwise deemed to pose a threat to public safety).4

The district court discounted that evidence because the great majority of 2012
DACA requesters had been accorded deferred action. ROA.4484, n.101. But that is
neither surprising nor inconsistent with the existence of agency discretion. The 2012
guidelines, like the 2014 guidelines, establish a process whereby aliens without lawful
status can identify themselves to DHS and request that any action on their removal be
deferred. The pool of aliens requesting deferred action is thus self-selective, and few
can be expected to risk bringing themselves to DHS’s attention if prior arrests, gang
affiliations, or some other circumstances make them poor candidates for deferred
action—especially when the process requires a background check. ROA.86. The
court thus erred in ignoring the terms of the 2014 Guidance and concluding that the
guidelines mandate deferred action and preclude case-by-case evaluation.

...For the foregoing reasons, the preliminary injunction should be reversed. In
the alternative, the injunction should be reversed to the extent that it extends to States
other than Texas or, at a minimum, as to non-plaintiff States.

http://www.justice.gov/sites/default...s_pi_brief.pdf

DACA-IR-DA · 04-01-2015, 01:45 AM

This DACA Expansion is not any different from 2012 though except now it is 3 years.

Can the court make this 2 years as well and let DACA Expansion start?

Pianoswithoutfaith · 04-01-2015, 02:58 AM

DAuser you have GOT to be trolling us here man

freshh. · 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dtrt09

Cliff's Notes version:

http://www.justice.gov/sites/default...s_pi_brief.pdf

The preliminary injunction irreparably harms the defendants and the public interest by disrupting the Secretary’s comprehensive effort to most effectively marshal the agency’s limited resources to protect national security, public safety, and border security, while deferring low-priority removals of aliens that would impose undue humanitarian costs. In contrast, plaintiffs will suffer no cognizable harm if the injunction is lifted.

This is the best part, IMO.

Especially after the Republicans nearly shut down DHS over DAPA.

They need you!

Forum links

Resources

Join our list

National calendar of events

August

Justice Department appeals federal judge's hold on Obama's immigration action