Free Republic

A federal judge for the second time found the DACA program unlawful, but held back from ordering the deportation of the nearly 600,000 people who remain in the country as “Dreamers.” The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, first crafted with a 2012 memo under the Obama administration, was likewise found unlawful by federal District Court Judge Andrew Hanen in a similar ruling in 2021. “While sympathetic to the predicament of DACA recipients and their families, this Court has expressed its concerns about the legality of the program for some time,” Hanen wrote in the 40-page ruling. “The solution for...

High-powered immigrant advocacy organizations filed a lawsuit Wednesday to try to kick-start President Obama’s deportation amnesty, arguing that the Texas judge who halted the program two years ago can’t bind the rest of the country to his decision. The groups filed a challenge in Illinois, building on a similar lawsuit filed over the summer in New York. If either one is successful, it could ignite a stampede of copycats, creating a patchwork across the country where Homeland Security would have to issue work permits and stays of deportation to some illegal immigrants, but would be barred from approving applications from...

During the hearing in Unites States v. Texas, the attorney representing MALDF and Jane Does explained that because the motion for reconsideration before the Supreme Court is still pending, Judge Hanen lacks jurisdiction to enforce his sanctions order that was issued in May. I don’t think that is correct. Under Supreme Court Rule 44, before the mandate is issued, the lower court proceedings are stayed. But that does not affect the court’s inherent authority to enforce an injunction that is not stayed.(Here, the 5th Circuit declined to stay the injunction, and inexplicably, the government did not seek a stay from...

Today I took a quick detour to Brownsville, Texas for the latest hearing in United States v. Texas (although I did not cross the border as planned). After following this case so closely over the past two years, I wanted to finally see Judge Hanen in action. This hearing was originally put on the calendar as a status conference, but in light of the sanctions order, and the currently pending petition for rehearing before the Court. First, all of the parties agreed that while the petition for rehearing was pending, under Supreme Court Rule 44, Judge Hanen should put the...

In a not unexpected move, immigrant advocates filed a lawsuit Thursday taking on a federal court ruling that blocked President Obama's 2014 executive actions providing deportation relief to certain undocumented immigrants. The lawsuit argues that the federal judge who blocked the implementation of the programs -- Andrew Hanen, a conservative in southern Texas -- did not have the authority to impose a nationwide injunction. Because the Supreme Court was evenly divided when Hanen’s order was appealed to the eight justices, the new lawsuit could open the door for Obama's actions to go back into effect for at least some undocumented...

“Fearless Four” respond to judge’s demand for their personal data with amicus brief LOS ANGELES — Four young immigrants whose private information was ordered disclosed by a federal judge in U.S. v. Texas filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case today, arguing that the judge’s order violates their constitutional right to privacy, runs contrary to precedent, and is unjustified. The group, known as the Fearless Four, includes Juan Escalante of Florida, Angelica Villalobos of Oklahoma, and two others who filed anonymously. They are just a few in a group of about 50,000 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients who...

Lawyers at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) concede that substantive errors were made in the legal challenge to President Obama’s executive immigration action. The errors include inaccurate information disclosed by DOJ lawyers in the early stages of the challenge brought by 26 states to a U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) order extending work permits and renewable legal status to four million undocumented immigrants. Government lawyers told U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen late in 2014 that they would not begin granting deportation deferrals under the program until February 2015 — in fact, the Department issued 100,000 deferrals beginning...

WASHINGTON, Aug. 9 (UPI) -- The Department of Justice has ordered about 1,000 of its attorneys to undergo additional ethics training following a Texas judge's ruling that he was misled. The additional one hour of training in a one-time program, on top of existing requirements, was ordered last month for attorneys in the Justice Department's Civil Division, according to court documents made public Monday. In May, Judge Andrew Hanen of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas said Justice Department lawyers intentionally misled him while the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals immigration lawsuit against the administration of...

The Obama administration’s two levels of defense of its broad new immigration policy — one, a continued attempt to put the policy into effect, the other, a move to head off a federal judge’s ethical complaints against federal lawyers in the case — are moving along even in the slow court days of summer. The policy seeking to put off deportation of close to five million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. has never gone into effect because of lower court orders stalling it. On June 23, the Supreme Court left those orders in effect, splitting 4-to-4. That was not...

In an immigration case in a Brownsville, Texas, federal court pitting Texas and 25 other states against the Obama administration, U.S. Department of Justice lawyers this week filed under seal their response to presiding U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen's May 19 sanctions order calling for them to undergo ethics training. In June, Hanen stayed that sanctions order until a scheduled Aug. 22 hearing. At the same time, Hanen had asked the DOJ lawyers to file by July 31 any points they wanted to make about "an appropriate sanction for the misrepresentations" and any other evidence "concerning the misrepresentations." In a...

Today, the Justice Department petitioned the Court “for re-hearing of this case before a full nine-Member Court.” Success is unlikely here. If five Justices wanted to hold the case until there was a ninth Justice, rather than deciding the case by a 4-4 margin, they could have simply held it over, like they did with Citizens United. That didn’t happen, which tells me that they could not broker a compromise internally. Instead, they made the somewhat striking decision to affirm by an equally divided margin. Nudging from OSG is unlikely to change the equation. The immediate effect of this petition...

Since a 4-4 deadlock put an anticlimactic end to President Barack Obama's offer of deportation relief to certain undocumented immigrants, the U.S. government filed Monday for a rehearing when the Supreme Court gets a ninth judge. The filing comes nearly a month after the Supreme Court issued just one sentence on June 23 that put an end to one of the most closely watched cases in the nation. One vote short since the death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February, the partisan split by the Supreme Court failed to topple a lower court's injunction against Obama's Deferred Action for Parents...

In a nine-word per curiam decision, eight justices of the United States Supreme Court have revealed they are deadlocked in a 4 to 4 divide on the new immigration procedures of the Obama administration, with its executive decision to not deport the immigrant parents of children born in the United States (thus citizens) and give them legal status but less than citizenship in the process. The State of Texas, joined by 25 others states, filed a lawsuit to block this executive action, which affects between 4 and 5 million immigrants in the United States. The case was before the Supreme...

U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch is looking into options to challenge a Supreme Court ruling that effectively determined a lower court’s decision neutering President Obama’s executive amnesty would stand. The ruling would help to prevent Obama from ignoring U.S. laws and from allowing many illegal aliens to stay in the U.S. without deportation. The statements from Attorney General Lynch were made during an interview with Reuters. The Reuters writer appears to have confused the ruling, as SCOTUS did not make the decision to block President Obama’s executive amnesty, they simply tied in their decision–which led to the Fifth Circuit’s ruling...

It may be tempting to regard the Supreme Court’s deadlocked decision last week in United States v. Texas, the Republican lawsuit challenging the Obama administration’s 2014 immigration initiatives, as something of a “non-decision” or “punt.” The Court’s one-line opinion—which, by convention, affirms the lower court’s judgment but has no further precedential effect—does not address any of the substantive issues presented in the case. Nor does the opinion itself disclose how any of the justices voted on any of the questions before them, although there seems little mystery as to which justices were likely on each side of the decision. And...

A lawyer for Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona’s Maricopa County, who first challenged Barack Obama’s immigration amnesty strategy that was blocked on Thursday by the U.S. Supreme Court, says it is good the justices “stood up to an out-of-control president who rules like he is King George III in 1776.” The court was split 4-4 so the resulting ruling is that the decision from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is left standing. That affirmed a lower court’s decision that Obama could not implement an expanded amnesty program with orders from his agencies and departments. WND had broken the...

Analysis President Barack Obama’s ambitious plan to overhaul U.S. immigration policy for millions of foreign nationals living in the U.S. came close to crashing down Thursday in a Supreme Court decision so brief that it was barely mentioned by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. If the policy is not yet entirely doomed, it could be after it is formally returned to a federal judge in Brownsville, Texas, who is sure to be guided by an appeals court ruling that already has said, in essence, that the government probably will lose. Technically, the policy might have another test before the...

The Supreme Court on Thursday blocked President Obama’s immigration executive actions, in a tie decision that delivers a win to states challenging his plan to give a deportation reprieve to millions of illegal immigrants. The justices' one-sentence opinion on Thursday marks a major setback for the administration, effectively killing the plan for the duration of Obama's presidency. The judgment could have significant political and legal consequences in a presidential election year highlighted by competing rhetoric over immigration. As the ruling was announced from the bench, pro-immigration activists filled the sidewalk in front of the court, some crying as the ruling...

Dealing a major blow to President Obama’s controversial executive immigration order, the U.S. Supreme Court announced Thursday it had failed to produce a majority opinion on the policy — meaning that the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals’ November 2015 decision rejecting the policy stands. The program had been blocked in February 2015 by a Brownsville-based federal judge, Andrew Hanen, days before it was scheduled to begin. In a one-sentence opinion, the Supreme Court declared, "The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court." The ruling was immediately hailed by conservatives across the country.

"Clearly, there seems to be a lack of knowledge about or adherence to the duties of professional responsibility in the halls of the Justice Department. ... The misconduct in this case was intentional, serious and material. In fact, it is hard to imagine a more serious, more calculated plan of unethical conduct." - U.S. District Court Justice Andrew S. Hanen That was District Court Judge Andrew S. Hanen's reaction when he discovered that Department of Justice lawyers had lied to him regarding the Obama Administration's issuing of 100,000 expanded work permits for undocumented immigrants. This action violated Judge Hanen's prior...