Posted on 04/07/2015 11:50:42 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
A federal appeals court’s ruling Tuesday upholding the dismissal of a lawsuit over President Barack Obama’s first major executive action to aid illegal immigrants could help the Obama Administration fight a more significant suit that has resulted in Obama’s second wave of immigration orders being halted nationwide.
A three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that several immigration agents and the state of Mississippi lacked legal standing to sue over Obama’s 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program because evidence that the agents or the state would be harmed by the effort was too speculative.
“Neither Mississippi nor the Agents have alleged a sufficiently concrete and particularized injury that would give Plaintiffs standing to challenge DACA,” Judge W. Eugene Davis wrote in an opinion joined by Judges Carolyn King and Priscilla Owen.
In February, a federal judge based in Brownsville, Texas issued an injunction against Obama’s decision last year to expand the DACA program to give quasi-legal status and work permits to millions more illegal immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as minors. The order from U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen also barred the Department of Homeland Security from moving forward with a plan to extend the same benefits to illegal immigrant parents of U.S. citizens or permanent residents.
Hanen acted at the request of 26 states, led by Texas, arguing that Obama lacked the legal authority to implement what they contend is a de facto amnesty and legalization of millions of immigrants. One of the key issues in that case is whether Texas and the other states showed they would be harmed by the new round of immigration actions.
Legal experts scouring the 5th Circuit ruling Tuesday focused in particular on its treatment of Mississippi’s challenge to the original DACA program, aimed at so-called Dreamers.
“The district court held that Mississippi’s alleged fiscal injury was purely speculative because there was no concrete evidence that Mississippi’s costs had increased or will increase as a result of DACA. Based on the record before the district court, we agree,” Davis wrote. “Mississippi submitted no evidence that any DACA eligible immigrants resided in the state. Nor did Mississippi produce evidence of costs it would incur if some DACA-approved immigrants came to the state.”
Davis noted that the only evidence of damages was a 2006 study showing social service costs and other state expenditures in Mississippi increased more than $25 million a year due to illegal immigration generally, not specific to the Obama program. The ruling also notes that focusing deportation efforts might relieve some burdens on the state.
“It could be that the reallocation of DHS’s assets is resulting in the removal of immigrants that impose a greater financial burden on the state,” wrote Davis, a Reagan appointee. King is a Carter appointee and Owen a George W. Bush appointee.
Rulings of one three-judge panel on legal issues are binding on other panels of the appeals court, including one expected to hear arguments on the Obama Administration’s request to stay Hanen’s injunction against the second wave of Obama immigration actions.
However, the panel assigned to that case could conclude that the facts are different because Texas and other states presented different evidence of the costs they would incur if Obama’s expanded immigration action went into effect. The main evidence was that issuing drivers licenses to those granted deferred action would increase state expenses because the charge for licenses doesn’t cover all related expenses.
Other states have argued that the deferred action programs and associated work permits would have a net positive financial effect on state coffers.
The 5th Circuit is widely considered the most conservative federal appeals court in the country. Among active judges, it leans 2-1 Republican.
The militia does. Unfortunately, there are no true patriots alive today. To act would require far too much sacrifice. The Founders would b!tch slap us if they were here today. AFTER they had removed the traitors from DC.
Last I heard the response was filed within 48 hours, filed on that Saturday.
alleged a sufficiently concrete and particularized injury
Anyone who can't see the injuries inflicted daily on a large scale is deaf dumb and blind.
In Obama’s legal world, nobody has standing to challenge him in court.
The state messed up bad. Sounds like the court would have heard them if the state had given them a chance.
Heck, school costs are obvious.
Like those in Congress, too many Federal Judges across this country are scared of the obozo administration for themselves and their families and will not risk going against it. Even admitting it as such could result in consequences. Maybe I’m wrong but I don’t believe all of whom I speak are as evil and anti American as obozo and his minions so what else could it be?? It’s how organized crimes works and organized crime has obviously taken our WH.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/conncarroll/2015/03/20/federal-judge-n1973696
At a one-hour hearing in Brownsville, Hanen gave the Justice Department 48 hours to file a motion in response. He said he would then rule promptly on whether to require the government to produce documents concerning applications under Obama’s deferred action program.
I cannot find how he ruled.
If this is the “logic” from our black-robed oppressors then how in the hell do all of the watermelon-Marxist greenie groups have standing to sue the Federal government?
If patriots ever get control of all 3 branches of government we need to pass laws that severely curtail the power of the federal courts and pass a law that explicitly grants the states, local governments, and citizens standing to sue the federal government and agencies for damages and unconstitutional acts. Federal bureaucrats also need their bogus immunity from lawsuits removed as well.
I was thinking that too. Who wrote Mississippi’s challenge - the weak link?
In this case the panel made the right decision.
If you go to court making the argument that something is hurting you financially, you better have solid evidence that you are being hurt financially. A 9 year old study on a matter that is at best tangentally related doesn’t cut it.
I mean, the plaintiffs couldn’t even show that there were DACA’s in their state? Really???
That is what it sounds like to me as well. They brought a pretty feeble case if the reporting is accurate - a big if.
DOJ did respond. I believe Hanen has not yet ruled.
http://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=14308
There is a detailed list of events at the foot of this document, but it is current only through February
Thanks. I want to read those. Hanen was not a happy camper on March 19 and I am very interested in the current status of that case.
Events through March 22 at the foot of this document
That might give you standing. But to win you have to prove that your cranium removal was a known result, or an intended consequence, of that action by a specific party.
Every single citizen has standing, whether these dumb ass judges grasp that or not.
If I held power and there was any way to do it, I’d remove these judges.
Yep. They know better too. Proof of fiscal impact is mandatory.
Here’s the Saturday March 21 DOJ response to the March 19 order
BS...what they need is real victims...but then the court would say that other people are vitcims ,of other people, and toss it because they are treated equally under the law.
This maddness......time for Sparta.
And the Kelo decision to seize private property and give it to others who could profit more was NOT speculative?
You can tell that the courts are now just making crap up to justify the government position, regardless of the issues.
-PJ
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.