Texas v. United States - Order 8-11-2015

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BROWNSVILLE DIVISION

The Court will hold the hearing in this matter on August 19, 2015 as scheduled. The Court releases all individual defendants from its earlier order requiring mandatory attendance.

Nevertheless, the Court remains concerns about the individuals that still possess credentials issued in violation of the Court’s injunction. Counsel for the Government needs to be prepared to discuss the reasons that these individuals are not in compliance, the steps the Government has taken and will continue to take to achieve complete compliance and the time table to achieve that goal in the very near future. The Court does not consider mere substantial compliance, after an order has been in place for six months, to be acceptable and neither should counsel.

Further counsel for both sides shall be prepared to discuss their Joint Advisory, the matters still in dispute, and the manner, procedure and/or court action that needs to be taken in order to bring these matters to a conclusion.

___________________________________ Andrew S. Hanen United States District Judge Case 1:14-cv-00254 Document 289 Filed in TXSD on 08/11/15 Page 1 of 1

Judge Hanen is now not requiring the Director of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson to appear with other high ranking officials to appear in his courtroom on August 19. Jeh Johnson had raised the issue of separation of powers.

Judge Hanen is now leaving it to the lawyers to hash out. The issue is the violation of Judge Hanen’s order to not issue deferred deportations and work IDs to illegals. DHS is supposed to track down thousands of ‘mistakes’ in issuing the documents (amnesty documents) that violate his order and rescind or confiscate them.

http://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=14308

Case Summary

On December 3, 2014, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, 14 states (South Dakota, Louisiana, Alabama, Texas, West Virginia, Kansas, Georgia, Nebraska, Utah, Wisconsin, Montana, Idaho, South Carolina, and Indiana) and four governors (of Mississippi, Maine, North Carolina, and Idaho) sued the U.S. government for violations of the Take Care Clause of the U.S. Constitution and of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), seeking injunctive and declaratory relief. The original plaintiffs were later joined in the suit by Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, and the Attorney General of Michigan. The lawsuit claims that the President has “unilaterally suspend[ed] the immigration laws as applied to 4 million of the 11 million” illegal aliens in the United States.

Specifically, the plaintiffs challenge the executive’s expansion of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) - the deportation reprieve offered to undocumented immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as children - and the creation of Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) - a temporary deportation reprieve for undocumented parents of U.S. citizens and lawful residents. They allege that these executive actions amount to an unlawful suspension of the nation’s immigration laws, in violation of the Take Care Clause of the Constitution, and that the policies are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion and were issued without regulatory authority or the required notice and opportunity for public comment, in violation of the APA.

On February 16, 2015, the District Court (Judge Andrew S. Hanen) granted the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction. Finding that the administration’s programs would impose major burdens on states, unleashing illegal immigration and straining state budgets, and that the administration had not followed required procedures for changing federal rules, the court enjoined the government from implementing the expansion of the deferred action program, which was to take effect on February 18, pending the final resolution of the case.

On February 23, 2015, the government appealed the Judge’s order to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. On the same day, the government asked the district court to stay the order pending appeal to allow the expanded program to go into effect.

Rebecca Eisenbrey - 03/10/2015
- 03/10/2015

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.