[HOME ] [ABOUT] [PHOTOS] [VIDEO] [BLOG] [HOUSTON] [TEXAS] [U.S. NEWS] [WORLD NEWS] [SPORTS] [POP CULTURE] [CONTACT]
Texas wins "Round I" White House promises "Round II" on immigration
Governor Greg Abbott surrounded by relatives as he graces the stage at Moody Theater. Voters were in a celebratory mood on election night.—Photo by Joseph Earnest
by Joseph Earnest February 17, 2015
Newscast Media AUSTIN, Texas—Last year, Governor Gregg Abbott who at the time was the Texas attorney general filed a lawsuit, together with 25 other states against the Obama administration, challenging the government's authority to protect illegal immigrants. Just 24 hours ago, a Texas federal judge granted an injunction to the Plaintiffs, that will stop Obama's program from being implemented.
The question the Court was faced with was, "Do the laws of the United States or the Constitution give the Department of Homeland Security the power to defer action against illegal aliens?"
The government said the states lack Standing to pursue the lawsuit, but the states argued that one of the Plaintiffs (Texas) has Standing to seek an injunction against the program that prevents deportation of illegals.
The states argued that the government cannot implement a substantive program then insulate itself from legal challenges by those who suffer the negative consequences of the program.
The states also argued that the directive violates the "Take Care Clause" of the Constitution, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA).
A
reminder to the readers of what the "Take Care Clause" is—when
a president takes office he swears to take care that the laws be faithfully
executed. In other words, when Barack Obama took office, he swore to uphold and protect the Constitution of
the United States.
Article II, section 3, states: "He shall from time to time give to the Congress
Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such
Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary
Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement
between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to
such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public
Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall
Commission all the Officers of the United States."
The last clause is called the "Take Care Clause" or "Faithfully Executed Clause."
It is meant to ensure that the law is faithfully executed by the president, no matter
how much he disagrees with a particular law, or who wrote it.
The State of Texas is therefore arguing that by introducing a directive that halts deportation of illegal immigrants, the president is acting contrary to his duty to take care that (immigration) laws are faithfully executed.
In regard to Standing, the Court ruled that only one Plaintiff needs to prove it, and not all of them, as long as it can show by a preponderance of evidence that it meets the Standing requirements.
Under Article III of the United States Constitution, in order to meet the burden of Standing, a party has to prove the following: (i) Injury in fact (ii) Causation) and (iii) Redresability.
To prove "injury" the Plaintiff is supposed to demonstrate that the Defendant's actions (in this case the government) will be or are injurious to it. The State of Texas proved that it would sustain economic injury if it were required to support illegal aliens should the government implement its deferred deportation program.
In regard to "causation" one must prove that the injury was directly caused by the Defendant's actions. As for "redressability" one must demonstrate that redress of the injury can only be achieved through the court system.
The State of Texas once again argued that the economic injury can directly be traced to the actions of the federal government, since federal law requires some states to pick up the tab in regard to fees pertaining to the issuance of drivers' licenses. Since Obama's program would require the issuance of drivers' licenses to illegals, under his program, Texas would suffer financially due to the extra administrative fees it would have to incur.
Redressability was demonstrated by the State of Texas that argued only a court injunction would redress the (financial) injury it would incur, should Obama implement his program.
The Plaintiff, in addition, had to meet the burden of Prudential Standing by demonstrating it is the "real party in interest" and Texas said it demonstrated that the State would directly incur any costs associated with Obama's program.
However, while the challenge of Standing was a very steep slope to climb, Texas was very clever and tricky, and used the "Standing by Abdication" doctrine, meaning that the Government has abdicated its statutory responsibilities to enforce the law, under the "Take Care Clause."
This tricky clause was irrefutably solid enough, that the judge concluded the State of Texas fulfilled the burden of meeting the Standing requirements under Article III of the Constitution, and had met the burden of Prudential Standing, and also Standing under the Administrative Procedures Act, and issue the requested preliminary injunction that was prayed for by the 26 states. (pop-up)
The Court ruled: "...This Court finds that there is requisite Standing necessary for the pursuit of this case in federal court. Fulfilling the constitutional requirements of Standing, Texas has shown that will suffer an injury, that this injury is proximately caused by the actions of the Government, and that a favorable remedy issued by this Court would prevent the occurrence of the injury... The Court agrees that without a preliminary injunction, this genie would be hard to put back in the bottle..."
The White House responded to the loss by promising a "Round 2" and has since issued a statement that read in part: "The Department of Justice, legal scholars, immigration experts, and the district court in Washington, D.C. have determined that the President’s actions are well within his legal authority. Top law enforcement officials, along with state and local leaders across the country, have emphasized that these policies will also benefit the economy and help keep communities safe. 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."
It is obvious Obama will appeal this ruling as one can see in the last five words of the statement. Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedures, Obama has 30 days to file his "Notice of Appeal" which will be received by the legendary 5th Circuit Court known for its Conservative leanings.
The judge in the lower Court is obviously well-read and his 123 page ruling was well-cited, therefore it would be almost impossible for the 5th Circuit to reverse it.
*Click here to read the entire ruling in Texas vs. United States. (pop-up)
Newscast Media will bring the readers "Round 2" as we continue to monitor court proceedings in this particular case. Add Comments>>
Related stories:
Gov-elect
Greg Abbott's message to Obama: Don't mess with Texas
George
P. roars, Abbott soars-- Texas Election Night Party Mixer
|
|
Join the Newscast Media social networks
for current events and multimedia content.
Copyright© Newscast Media. All Rights Reserved. Terms and Privacy Policy