A federal court has again blocked President Barack Obama’s executive orders giving quasi-legal status and work permits to millions of illegal immigrants, an action that critics say is an illicit backdoor amnesty plan.
Advertisement
For its part, the Obama administration is arguing that it is within its legal rights to choose whether certain groups of immigrants can be shielded from deportation. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R), who was at that time serving as the state’s Attorney General, led a twenty-six state coalition that opposed DAPA and they successfully argued for a preliminary injunction to be issued by a Texas federal court to prevent DAPA from being implemented.
Republicans hailed the ruling as a victory against the Obama administration. “Once the green light is given [by the Supreme Court], it will make it that much more hard for any administration, Republican or Democrat, to undo the program”.
Immigration activists protest outside the federal appeals court in New Orleans. “The Supreme Court should reaffirm that principle, recognizing that the president’s immigration initiative is simply an exercise of that lawful discretion, and allow the program to be implemented immediately”.
If the 5th Circuit court had waited too long to allow an appeal to the Supreme Court, Obama’s hopes of carrying out his program before he leaves office in 2017 would have all but ended.
The appeals court case is Texas v. U.S., 15-40238, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (New Orleans).
Their ruling said the program “would dramatically increase the number of aliens eligible for work authorization, thereby undermining Congress’s stated goal of closely guarding access to work authorization and preserving jobs for those lawfully in the country”.
“The court’s decision is a vindication for the rule of law and the Constitution”, Abbott said in a statement.
There are an estimated 11 million immigrants living in the country illegally. The program would apply to parents of USA citizen children and legal residents.
In May, the appellate court denied a request by the White House to let the program proceed while the case played out in the courts.
If the high court’s four Democratic appointees vote to take the case, the decision would come in June, “just as the political parties are settling in on their candidates”, Murray said.
Republicans slammed the initiatives as a prime example of executive overreach and a group of GOP-run states, led by Texas, sued to block them in federal court.
Advertisement
The 70-page majority opinion, written by Judge Jerry Smith and joined by Jennifer Walker Elrod, rejected the government’s arguments that the district judge abused his discretion on a national order and that the states opposing the order lacked standing to challenge it. Meanwhile, in her 53-page dissent, Judge Carolyn Dineen King said the administration was within the law and that the Department of Homeland Security has limited resources.
