Posted on 02/21/2015 9:17:19 AM PST by 11th_VA
Late Monday night, a federal district court in Brownsville, Texas, entered an order prohibiting enforcement of the Obama administration’s program granting lawful status to some four million or five million undocumented aliens. Administration supporters immediately filled the airwaves with claims that the decision was a political stunt by a George W. Bush -appointed judge and would quickly be reversed.
They should read U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen ’s order.
(snip - good read)
Despite misleading claims by administration supporters that the order interferes with executive discretion to set enforcement priorities, the district court narrowly crafted its order not to touch on prosecutorial discretion.
The court order is explicitly confined to the grant of work authorization and affirmative benefits, which has never been part of prosecutorial discretion.
Administration lawyers pointed to five prior instances when presidents from Ronald Reagan to George W. Bush granted temporary status to certain classes of aliens without statutory authority.
The district court noted, however, that none of these instances was reviewed in court and that past executive actions cannot serve as precedent for future expansions of executive power.
(snip - good read)
... the administration cannot implement its unilateral DAPA program unless and until the decision is reversed on appeal by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals or by the Supreme Court. It will not be easy for the administration’s lawyers to persuade those courts that Judge Hanen got the law wrong.
Mr. McConnell, a former judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, is a professor of law and director of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...
The Obama administration argued that DAPA is a routine application of “prosecutorial discretion”—the authority of executive officials to set priorities for enforcement of the law and to refrain from enforcement in cases where the public interest is least urgent. The district court recognized, however, that prosecutorial discretion is limited to nonenforcement and doesn’t entitle the executive branch to grant affirmative benefits such as work permits and welfare without statutory authority and notice-and-comment rule-making.
There is other wording in the INA that prohibits the use of policy to go around the law. While both parties have used “prosecutorial prirritates” to do just that, this is going beyond all that.
“... the administration cannot implement its unilateral DAPA program unless and until the decision is reversed on appeal by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals or by the Supreme Court. It will not be easy for the administration’s lawyers to persuade those courts that Judge Hanen got the law wrong. ...”
++++
If anyone can offer insight into the makeup of the Fifth Court of Appeals they should speak up.
I’ve also read that Obama is shopping around for a more friendly court. That brings up a related question. What has to happen to allow such a change?
Touche' !!!!
Is this an alternative link to the entire article or to a different writing by the same author on the same subject?
It’s really too bad we don’t have an opposition party.
Relying on the few honest judges who remain may not be enough.
It would help if we could actually read the article without having to subscribe to the WSJ...
“I’ve also read that Obama is shopping around for a more friendly court.”
He cant! The only places he can go for direct relief is the 5th Circuit (where he’s almost certain to loose) or the SCOTUS. There is no option to judge-shop this ruling outside those two courts.
Appeals court reinstates Texas voter ID law
A federal appeals court on Tuesday reinstated Texas' tough voter ID law for the November election, which the U.S. Justice Department had condemned as the state's latest means of suppressing minority voter turnout. The ruling by the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily blocks last week's ruling by U.S. District Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos in Corpus Christi, who determined the law unconstitutional and similar to a poll tax designed to dissuade minorities from voting.
If you Google the title the article should shown up for free reading.
Really? I don’t subscribe, and was able to read it - see post #7 above - that is the same article on an alternate link.
Thanks for that note - Obama is going to get squeezed ... he's going to lash out like a wounded animal now - you watch ...
This might be the article. Same author anyway on the same subject:
Agree - but that new Texas Governor (who brought this suit) seems to be Presidential material to me ... he seems brilliant !!!
LOL !!! Yeah - I love it too !!!
a contrary decision by another circuit is needed to get the matter quickly before the SCOTUS....... I think
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.