Maldef files brief to close DAPA case - Page 4

But I think the House of Representatives may step in and have their lawyers defend it anyway

That's not going to happen. Paul Ryan believes daca was unconstitutional so I doubt they will defend it.

But the WH was still able to defend it in court so your point is?

And when they don't then they have to pass legislation.Boooooommmm

Just like they have to pass legislation to repeal Obamacare?????

Not sure how anyone would trust our current Congress to do anything

Ur comparing apples and oranges. They passed a Russian sanctions bill with a veto proof majority. Congress comes together to pass certain bills. Dreamers have bipartisan support.

Secretary Kelly also publicly called on Congress to act. “I’m not going to let you [Congress] off the hook,” he stated, “You’ve got to solve this problem.” That solution is becoming increasingly urgent in the face of impending lawsuits. Based on the results of the DAPA suit, it is highly unlikely that DACA would survive in court, especially if the government does not defend it.

https://niskanencenter.org/blog/cong...nt-protection/

Is the honorable John Kelly going to honor his word and push for legislation as the new chief of staff? We shall see!

Brownsville, TX - A threat by the State of Texas to amend a lawsuit to include a belated challenge to the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) initiative should be thrown out on the grounds that the original lawsuit is not related to DACA, according to a motion filed in federal court today.

The motion, filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas in Brownsville by MALDEF (Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund) and the law firm O'Melveny & Myers LLP, requests that the court block any effort by Texas to amend its 2015 lawsuit against the DAPA (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents) initiative to include a challenge to DACA. DAPA, a 2014 Obama Administration initiative, was barred from implementation by the Brownsville court after Texas and 25 other states sued to stop it, and the initiative never went into effect.

On June 15 of this year, the Department of Homeland Security issued a memorandum officially rescinding DAPA. That action, according to the motion filed today, renders the lawsuit moot and it therefore cannot be amended. "The Court should not countenance Plaintiffs' threatened attempt to sneak an attack on DACA into this lawsuit and should dismiss the case as moot without leave to amend," the motion reads.

"Texas' lawless attempt to revive this dead lawsuit by converting it from a challenge to the now-rescinded DAPA into an assault on the highly successful five-year-old DACA initiative is the most ill-advised experiment in revivification since Frankenstein's monster," said Thomas A. Saenz, MALDEF president and general counsel. "The state's lawyers should abandon their mad scientists' laboratory and attend to the needs of Texas, which has immeasurably benefited from DACA."

On June 29, Texas sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions threatening to amend the DAPA lawsuit if DACA is not rescinded by the Trump Administration by Sept. 5. During the 2015 federal court hearing seeking a preliminary injunction to block DAPA, Texas made it clear that it was not challenging the 2012 DACA initiative and, the motion says, the state cannot amend its lawsuit to do so now.

"Plaintiffs never challenged the 2012 DACA initiative, and in fact they affirmatively represented to this Court that they were ‘not challenging the DACA program'," the motion reads. "Plaintiffs should not now, after nearly three years, be allowed to surprise the Federal Defendants, the Intervenors, and the nation by amending their complaint to completely change the nature of the case. If Plaintiffs truly wish to challenge the DACA initiative, they should be required to assert those claims in a new lawsuit."

"We are proud to have been able to work with MALDEF in fighting to preserve the DACA initiative from Texas' threatened challenge," said Gabriel Markoff, an associate attorney at O'Melveny.

Read the motion here.

http://maldef.org/news/releases/2017...CA_Initiative/

I think we have a good shot of getting this amendment thrown out. If they wanna file a new lawsuit then they should go ahead . They won't know if a new lawsuit would land in Judge Hannen's court. That is why they want to amend it so bad so that racist SOB can rule against us.

During the January 15, 2015 hearing, the Court asked: “This Court has been working under the assumption that DACA, D-A-C-A, is not in front of it. Am I -- am I correct in that?” Prelim. Inj. Hr’g Tr. 90:8-10, Jan. 15, 2015. Counsel for Plaintiffs affirmatively responded,
12

“Yes, Your Honor,” and then explained, “[W]e are not challenging the DACA program.” Id. 90:11, 91:4-5. Moreover, the opening paragraphs of Plaintiffs’ live complaint, the First Amendment Complaint, focus solely on the November 2014 DAPA Memorandum. See ECF No. 14 ¶¶ 2-6. And, during the March 19, 2015 hearing before this Court, Plaintiffs led off their argument by stating, “Your Honor, the plaintiff states filed this lawsuit on December 3rd challenging the DHS directive issued on November 20th [2014].” Mot. Hr’g Tr. 2:18-20, Mar. 19, 2015 (emphasis added). Finally, in seeking the preliminary injunction, Plaintiffs again focused exclusively on the 2014 DAPA Memorandum: “The issue is whether the Defendants’ 2014 deferred action plan—including the 2014 DHS Directive—should be preliminarily enjoined.” ECF No. 5 at 4.
In light of these representations, this Court has unambiguously stated that this litigation does not concern 2012 DACA. In enjoining the 2014 DAPA Memorandum’s implementation, this Court acknowledged that “this case does not involve the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (‘DACA’) program. In 2012, DACA was implemented by then DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano.... The Complaint in this matter does not include the actions taken by Secretary Napolitano.... Therefore, those actions are not before the Court.” ECF No. 145 at 5. The Court noted that the litigation involved expansions that the November 2014 DAPA Memorandum made to the 2012 DACA initiative, calling “the removal of the age cap, the program’s three-year extension, and the adjustment to the date of entry requirement...three exceptions...to the general proposition that the DACA program is not at issue in this case.” ECF No. 145 at 12 n.10. As explained above, those “exceptions” have since been rescinded and thus mooted along with the rest of the DAPA Memorandum, and as a result they do not change the fact that the original 2012 DACA itself is not at issue here.

https://www.maldef.org/assets/pdf/Fi...ion_072817.pdf

This is a big deal! Everyone should read the motion . I don't see how all these facts can be ignored by the courts.

That is good on our part. That is a good news!
Can they still file the new suit?