Texas judge's immigration rebuke may be hard to challenge

yahoo.com ^ | 2/18/15 | David Ingram and Mica Rosenberg

[cotton1706]

NEW YORK (Reuters) - President Barack Obama's administration faces a difficult and possibly lengthy legal battle to overturn a Texas court ruling that blocked his landmark immigration overhaul, since the judge based his decision on an obscure and unsettled area of administrative law, lawyers said.

In his ruling on Monday that upended plans to shield millions of people from deportation, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen avoided diving into sweeping constitutional questions or tackling presidential powers head-on. Instead, he faulted Obama for not giving public notice of his plans.

The failure to do so, Hanen wrote, was a violation of the 1946 Administrative Procedure Act, which requires notice in a publication called the Federal Register as well as an opportunity for people to submit views in writing.

The ruling, however narrow, marked an initial victory for 26 states that brought the case alleging Obama had exceeded his powers with executive orders that would let up to 4.7 million illegal immigrants stay without threat of deportation.

[cuban leaf]

It may be obscure, but it cut at the heart of Obama’s MO.

[cripplecreek]

It seems to me that many of Obama’s executive “actions” could be challenged and defeated based on the fact that they’re not executive orders.

[Crazieman]

I don’t see how. Make a new law.

Not like Congress means anything.

[pepsionice]

Basically, he’s probably going to have to acquire a couple of lawyers now to sit in the midst of the White House and figure new gimmicks to make the EO situation work for the remaining two years. It’s not just immigration that the judge throw the rock at...it could be used as a defense in most other EO actions as well.

[Political Junkie Too]

was a violation of the 1946 Administrative Procedure Act

But it was okay for Obama to use the Lacey Act of 1900 to raid Gibson Guitar.

-PJ

[tiki]

It isn’t an obscure law, I’ve participated several times, not that they really listen. They just go through the motions but at least you get your say.

[InterceptPoint]

It isn’t an obscure law, I’ve participated several times, not that they really listen. They just go through the motions but at least you get your say.

Why wouldn't Obama simply start over, reissue his EO and do it per the law? How long would that take?

[paint_your_wagon]

Obama and his followers believe the Constitution is an obscure law. It’s so outdated that it was written in cursive after all.

[Guenevere]

Bttt

[Liz]

It’s not just immigration that the judge throw the rock at...it's a potent defense in most of Obama's EO actions, as well.

You got that right.

The 26-state atty circumlocution is enviable---- Obamacare was argued in their brief (AND mentioned in the ruling)--- as part of the analysis of Plaintiffs’ standing to bring the case.

Specifically, the 26-states argued the fact that DACA winners can get jobs with US companies and not be counted toward the 50-employee threshold, and the reasonable expectation that DAPA winners will do likewise, make DACA/DAPA employees more desirable than citizen employees.

Inasmuch as the ruling doesn’t affect Obamacare, the exemptions to Obamacare do, in fact, affect the plaintiffs’ standing. (hat tip TXHURL)

[nathanbedford]

I have not yet had an opportunity to read the 120 page opinion but I had the impression that the holding was far broader than this article implies in which the judge found that the agency's actions were themselves unconstitutional as a usurpation of Article I powers rather than any improper failure to adhere to procedural requirements for hearings.

Can anybody straighten me out?

[cuban leaf]

Good point! I find it interesting the way the article says the bassis for the decision is based on something that is (My word) “controversial”.

[exit82]

nb, there is an excellent article here which reviews the ruling:

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/398820/print

[Excellence]

Maybe he can’t read cursive. ;)

[nathanbedford]

Thank you for that citation. It appears that there are varying opinions as to the effect of the opinion. The National Review article says this:

"DAPA was decreed on November 20, 2014, in a series of memorandums, without any opportunity for the public to comment beforehand. Judge Hanen found fatal the government’s failure to comply with the notice-and-comment requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). But the court went further, finding that DAPA was not an exercise or prosecutorial discretion. Rather, DAPA amounted to a decision to “‘consciously and expressly adopt[] a general policy’ that is so extreme as to amount to an abdication of its statutory responsibilities.” The president was willfully disregarding the laws of Congress that he did not agree with. Specifically, DAPA “does not simply constitute inadequate enforcement; it is an announced program of non-enforcement of the law that contradicts Congress’ statutory goals.” This policy, Hanen concluded, is unlawful and must be halted."

It appears that Josh Blackman of National Review finds that the court held that nonenforcement is a violation of law per se and not merely for procedural reasons. That is good news, if so.

[Travis McGee]

[Hotlanta Mike]

EVEN CHRIS MATTHEWS SAYS OBAMA ‘CAN’T GET AWAY WITH’ WRITING IMMIGRATION LAW WITHOUT CONGRESS

http://therightscoop.com/even-chris-matthews-says-obama-cant-get-away-with-writing-immigration-policy-without-congress/

[Hotlanta Mike]

ABBOTT: ‘OBAMA IS OUR STAR WITNESS’ IN AMNESTY SUIT

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/02/17/abbott-obama-is-our-star-witness-in-amnesty-suit/

[Ray76]

Here’s a link to the ruling, if you don’t already have it.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/255994877/Memorandum-Opinion-And-Order-Texas-v-United-States