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.
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)
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”.