Judge Hanens reasoning is set out in an opinion that is over 120 pages. But in essence, as the judge himself summarizes, the injunction is being issued due to the failure of the defendants to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act. As I explained when the lawsuit was first filed by the states back in December, the Administrative Procedure Act governs the issuance of new rules and regulations by government agencies. It requires public notice and opportunities to comment before a substantive rule can be enacted and bars arbitrary or capricious actions by agencies.
To give Obama a DISTRACTION ?
While I have some hope that the 5th district appeals court might uphold Judge Hanen’s ruling, I have little hope that it might prevail in the US Supreme Court. I’m sure Justice Roberts will by some twisted sophistry vote with the liberal members of the Court that Obama can in fact act like an emperor.
If it’s illegal Obama does it.
Regarding so-called federal government power to regulate immigration, both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, Madison generally regarded as the father of the Constitution, had written that no such delegation of power exists.
As mentioned in related threads, here is the relevant exerpt from Jeffersons writing.
4. _Resolved_, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people, the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the day of July, 1798, intituled An Act concerning aliens, which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force [emphasis added]. Thomas Jefferson, Draft of the Kentucky Resolutions - October 1798.
And here is the related excerpt from the writings of James Madison in Virginia Resolutions.
"That the General Assembly doth particularly protest against the palpable and alarming infractions of the Constitution, in the two late cases of the "Alien and Sedition Acts" passed at the last session of Congress; the first of which exercises a power no where delegated to the federal government, ...
the General Assembly doth solemenly appeal to the like dispositions of the other states, in confidence that they will concur with this commonwealth in declaring, as it does hereby declare, that the acts aforesaid, are unconstitutional; and that the necessary and proper measures will be taken by each, for co-operating with this state, in maintaining the Authorities, Rights, and Liberties, referred to the States respectively, or to the people [emphasis added]. James Madison, Draft of the Virginia Resolutions - December 1798.
In fact, regardless that federal Democrats and RINOs will argue that if the Constitution doesnt say that they cannot do something then they can do it, note that the Supreme Court has condemned that foolish idea. More specifically, the Supreme Court has clarified in broad terms that powers not expressly delegated to the feds via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate immigration in this case, are prohibited to the feds.
From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]. United States v. Butler, 1936.
So while the idea that Obama cannot pardon illegal immigrants without the legislative support of Congress is at least conceptually correct, it remains that the feds cannot legislatively address any aspect of immigration without the required consent of the Constitutions Article V 3/4 state majority via an immigration amendment to the Constitution imo.