This article is from the source 'washpo' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/federal-judge-in-texas-blocks-obama-immigration-orders/2015/02/17/1ce6ab6d-4a86-4027-852f-58b686c610cf_story.html?wprss=rss_homepage
The article has changed 10 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 2 | Version 3 |
|---|---|
| Federal judge in Texas blocks Obama immigration orders | Federal judge in Texas blocks Obama immigration orders |
| (about 1 hour later) | |
| A federal judge in Texas last night temporarily blocked the Obama administration’s executive actions on immigration. The judge, responding to a suit filed by 26 Republican-run states, did not rule on the legality of immigration orders but said there was sufficient merit to the challenge to warrant a suspension while the case goes forward. | |
| The Obama orders would offer a legal reprieve to the undocumented parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents who have resided in the country for at least five years. This would remove the constant threat of deportation. Many could also receive work permits. | The Obama orders would offer a legal reprieve to the undocumented parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents who have resided in the country for at least five years. This would remove the constant threat of deportation. Many could also receive work permits. |
| They would also expand the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program that allowed young immigrants, under 30 years old, who arrived as children are now here legally to apply for a deportation deferral. Immigrants older than 30 now qualify, as do more recent arrivals. | |
| Some 5 million undocumented immigrants were said to be potentially eligible to benefit from the executive actions. | |
| The administration’s directives have been vigorously challenged since they were issued in November by Republicans in Congress and across the country, who cite them as examples of what House Speaker John A. Boehner has called Obama’s “legacy of lawlessness.” The administration has defended them as routine exercises of presidential authority, made necessary by Congress’ failure to enact comprehensive revisions to U.S. immigration law. | |
| It was a major, if temporary, defeat for the administration, which argued that the case should be thrown out as meritless, “based on rhetoric, not law.” | |
| The immediate impact appeared likely to at least delay the application process, which was to begin Wednesday, for some undocumented immigrants wishing to take advantage of the new policies. | |
| The order was issued by Judge Andrew S. Hanen in Brownsville, Tex. Hanen was appointed to the bench by George W. Bush and has been outspoken against the administration’s immigration polices in other cases recently. | |
| The White House in a statement early Tuesday reported by the AP defended the executive orders issued in November as within the president’s legal authority, saying that the U.S. Supreme Court and Congress have said federal officials can set priorities in enforcing immigration laws. | |
| “The district court’s decision wrongly prevents these lawful, commonsense policies from taking effect and the Department of Justice has indicated that it will appeal that decision,” the statement said. | |
| Republicans in Congress have threatened to deny funding to the Department of Homeland Security unless the appropriation includes provisions rolling back the immigration orders — amendments certain to be vetoed by Obama, possibly leading to a partial DHS shutdown. | |
| Immigration authorities were set to begin accepting applications on Wednesday from immigrants seeking relief under the program, which was announced Nov. 20, 2014, to a chorus of angry criticism from Republicans, who argued the president was exceeding his constitutional authority. | Immigration authorities were set to begin accepting applications on Wednesday from immigrants seeking relief under the program, which was announced Nov. 20, 2014, to a chorus of angry criticism from Republicans, who argued the president was exceeding his constitutional authority. |
| Specifically, the lawsuit claimed that the president’s orders unilaterally changed federal immigration law, usurping Congress’s exclusive power to legislate, and violated the president’s constitutional duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” | Specifically, the lawsuit claimed that the president’s orders unilaterally changed federal immigration law, usurping Congress’s exclusive power to legislate, and violated the president’s constitutional duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” |
| It also said Obama violated the Administrative Procedure Act by not running his orders through the elaborate process of rulemaking — including 90-day notices and comment periods — instead just ramming them through via directives. | It also said Obama violated the Administrative Procedure Act by not running his orders through the elaborate process of rulemaking — including 90-day notices and comment periods — instead just ramming them through via directives. |
| The administration countered that the states would suffer no harm from the executive orders and thus they had no standing to sue. It argued as well that the executive branch has sufficient power over immigration, including “prosecutorial discretion,” to implement the changes just as it did. | The administration countered that the states would suffer no harm from the executive orders and thus they had no standing to sue. It argued as well that the executive branch has sufficient power over immigration, including “prosecutorial discretion,” to implement the changes just as it did. |
| Hanen did not issue a ruling on the merits of the challenge or offer a formal opinion on the constitutional issue. Rather, he based his temporary injunction on his belief that the administration likely failed to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act and that case should go forward rather than be thrown out, as the administration has urged. | Hanen did not issue a ruling on the merits of the challenge or offer a formal opinion on the constitutional issue. Rather, he based his temporary injunction on his belief that the administration likely failed to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act and that case should go forward rather than be thrown out, as the administration has urged. |
| The order was made public by Texas Gov. Gregg Abbott (R), who filed the suit on Dec. 3, when he was the state’s attorney general. | The order was made public by Texas Gov. Gregg Abbott (R), who filed the suit on Dec. 3, when he was the state’s attorney general. |
| “President Obama abdicated his responsibility to uphold the United States Constitution when he attempted to circumvent the laws passed by Congress via executive fiat,” Abbott said in a statement, “and Judge Hanen’s decision rightly stops the President’s overreach in its tracks. We live in a nation governed by a system of checks and balances, and the President’s attempt to by-pass the will of the American people was successfully checked today.” | “President Obama abdicated his responsibility to uphold the United States Constitution when he attempted to circumvent the laws passed by Congress via executive fiat,” Abbott said in a statement, “and Judge Hanen’s decision rightly stops the President’s overreach in its tracks. We live in a nation governed by a system of checks and balances, and the President’s attempt to by-pass the will of the American people was successfully checked today.” |
| Reaction from immigrants’ rights groups was swift. “Judge Hanen’s ruling is not permanent and we are confident that it will be repealed in a higher court,” Cristina Jimenez, managing director of United We Dream, a Washington, D.C.-based immigrant advocacy group, told the Los Angeles Times. “Republican attacks like this lawsuit do not scare us, they just focus our resolve to make these programs even more successful.” | Reaction from immigrants’ rights groups was swift. “Judge Hanen’s ruling is not permanent and we are confident that it will be repealed in a higher court,” Cristina Jimenez, managing director of United We Dream, a Washington, D.C.-based immigrant advocacy group, told the Los Angeles Times. “Republican attacks like this lawsuit do not scare us, they just focus our resolve to make these programs even more successful.” |
| “We are confident that the higher courts will reject this lawsuit since it has no legal merit and only wastes taxpayer dollars,” the group said in a statement. | “We are confident that the higher courts will reject this lawsuit since it has no legal merit and only wastes taxpayer dollars,” the group said in a statement. |
| RELATED: Your complete guide to Obama’s immigration executive action | RELATED: Your complete guide to Obama’s immigration executive action |
| Read more from the Morning Mix | Read more from the Morning Mix |