DOJ Admits It Really Messed Up Landmark Immigration Case

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 in November 2014.

Hanen was apoplectic when the deferrals were disclosed, accusing DHS of brazen obstruction and ordering thousands of government lawyers to undergo ethics training. (RELATED: DOJ Defies Federal Judge To Protect White House’s Amnesty)

In court filings released Monday, the DOJ denied intentionally misleading the court, but concede it made a serious mistake.

“We do not dispute that we made mistakes that led to unfortunate circumstances here: at critical times we provided incomplete information to the Court because of our failure to appreciate the scope of the questions asked of us; and we used imprecise terminology in our oral and written submissions to the Court,” the brief reads.

“As a result, our submissions left the Court with an incorrect understanding of the facts regarding grants by the Department of Homeland Security (‘DHS’) of three-year terms of deferred action to individuals qualifying under the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival (‘DACA’) eligibility criteria,” it continues. “We acknowledge and apologize for these mistakes, and for the valuable time the Court has expended on this matter as a result.”

In an attempt to appease Hanen, all attorneys in the DOJ’s Civil Division will sit for a one hour training course in ethics and professional responsibility, announced Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Benjamin Mizer.

Lawyers at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) lied. Its the signature manifestation of the entire Obama regime and its cabinet officers. THEY LIE.Then everyone lies from the Cabinet Secretaries right on down to the lowliest civil servant

The whole mess of them would sooner lie than tell the truth. After all, that’s how they get the big bucks?

I think certain DOJ lawyers should be disbarred for it.

Meanwhile if you want to keep your doctor, you can keep your doctor. And That young black man shot in righteous self defence? He could have been me, could have been my son.

To tell the honest truth, i wish it had been him, then the dirty bastid would not have been unleashed upon an unsuspecting nation voting enthusiastically for our “first black president.” He may have been first, and he may have been black (but I doubt even that), but he sure as hell was no president.

Don’t miss the real backstory on this issue. Judge Hansen granted Texas a preliminary injunction against the DAPA policy, and that is the decision that was affirmed by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, and “affirmed” in the SCOTUS in a tied 4-4 Per Curiam opinion. That sent the case back to Judge Hanen to try the case on the merits under the guidance of the 5th Circuit opinion.

In order to grant the preliminary injunction, Judge Hanen had to find it was likely for Texas to prevail upon the merits of the case. In so doing, he looked at the companion DACA program, which was implemented prior to DAPA. (DACA has not been successfully Constitutionally challenged. Mississippi and the Border Patrol union tried but found to have no standing to sue in Crane v. Johnson). In reviewing the DACA program, Judge Hanen found that there were no examples of a DACA applicant being turned down where they met minimal application requirements. Because of that, he found that the DACA program was not an exercise of discretion but instead the de facto creation of a new class of alien, which DHS was not authorized to do without Congressional action.

Since DAPA is the same program targeted to a different type of alien, Judge Hanen found it was the same unconstitutional creation of a new class of alien, and ordered the program halted.

But what the government did was go ahead and process DAPA applications, and lied to the Judge about it. Clearly unethical behavior, but done with a legal purpose. The purpose was to randomly draw some names out of the stack of applications and deny them. “See Judge, we ARE exercising discretion.” So when the case gets set for trial on the merits, the government can be expected to offer proof of their “discretion” and save the program.

The question is whether Judge Hanen will allow such evidence when it was obtained in under false pretenses of telling the Judge they were NOT processing DAPA applications.

Of course, this is all moot. Either Hillary Clinton will appoint the deciding 5th Justice for SCOTUS, who will rubber-stamp the approval of the DAPA program, or Donald Trump will rescind the program by executive order, and make further litigation moot.

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.