Patterico's Pontifications


Oral Argument Today on Fifth Circuit Case Challenging Obama’s Most Recent Amnesty

Filed under: Court Decisions,General,Immigration — Patterico @ 7:29 am

There is an important oral argument taking place today in the Fifth Circuit regarding Obama’s amnesty.

First, a paragraph of background: there have been two amnesty-related cases of note percolating through the Fifth Circuit, and it’s important to keep them straight. One case has been around a while: the challenge to Obama’s action on the “Dreamers” — his “deferred action for childhood arrivals” or DACA. In the second case, a judge who has been very critical of Obama’s amnesty issued an injunction barring implementation of Obama’s recent and far more sweeping executive amnesty.

The DACA case has been decided; more on that below. Oral argument will be heard today on the injunction regarding the sweeping amnesty. Last month, Paul Mirengoff at Power Line gave us a summary and preview:

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has issued an order that sets oral argument in Texas v. United States for April 17. This is the case in which Texas and other states challenge President Obama’s executive amnesty.

In district court proceedings, Judge Hanen temporarily enjoined the government from enforcing Obama’s program to grant lawful status to millions of illegal immigrants. The government has moved for a stay of that order, pending appeal.

The oral argument on April 17, for which two hours have been allocated, will pertain only to the government’s motion for a stay. As for the merits of the injunction, the Fifth Circuit’s order sets a briefing schedule and permits the filing of briefs by a number of amici, including Senators Cruz and Cornyn.

Mirengoff reports that the government is arguing that Obama’s amnesty is somehow “essential to national security” because it helps ICE agents “quickly distinguish dangerous immigrants from those who pose no threat.” Expect this to come up in the oral argument.

Oral arguments can be very revealing, as the resolution of the DACA/Dreamers case shows. Recall my prediction. Last month, after listening to the audio of the oral argument in that case, I told you:

I’m the guy who told you that the panel was going to rule against Obama in Halbig, based on listening to the oral argument. Unfortunately, I have to be the guy to tell you that — unless I am interpreting the argument incorrectly — the Fifth Circuit is probably going to rule for Obama here.

And that is exactly what happened, 10 days ago. Politico reported (Google cache link, no links for bullies):

A federal appeals court’s ruling Tuesday upholding the dismissal of a lawsuit over President Barack Obama’s first major executive action to aid illegal immigrants could help the Obama administration fight a more significant suit that has resulted in Obama’s second wave of immigration orders being halted nationwide.

A three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals unanimously ruled that several immigration agents and the state of Mississippi lacked legal standing to sue over Obama’s 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program because evidence that the agents or the state would be harmed by the effort was too speculative.

“Neither Mississippi nor the Agents have alleged a sufficiently concrete and particularized injury that would give Plaintiffs standing to challenge DACA,” Judge W. Eugene Davis wrote in an opinion joined by Judges Carolyn King and Priscilla Owen.

Always trust content from Patterico.

We’ll see what today’s argument holds in store. I admit to a lack of optimism, but that is characteristic of my personality. I’ll report more on it when I get a chance to hear the audio.

UPDATE: I should note that on the earlier case, I thought they might grant standing but deny on the merits — and they tossed it on standing. Details.

The audio of today’s oral argument is here. I have heard about half an hour or so. More later.

15 Responses to “Oral Argument Today on Fifth Circuit Case Challenging Obama’s Most Recent Amnesty”

  1. no worries

    marco sleazio says when he’s president he’ll just undo everything

    happyfeet (a037ad)

  2. If it’s good enough for Mexico (et al), it’s good enough for us.

    Mark (6c31df)

  3. The court decided the Dreamers case based on standing, finding there wasn’t a showing of adverse impact in Mississippi so that makes me a little more optimistic about the Texas case. It should be easier for Texas to show an adverse impact from immigration than it was for Mississippi, and thus satisfy standing. Also, by deciding the Dreamers case on standing, the court hasn’t yet ruled on the underlying immigration issues so these judges aren’t constrained by any recent precedent.

    DRJ (e80d46)

  4. How does Obama’s prosecutorial discretion extend to printing green cards when forbidden by law?

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  5. If they don’t have standing then they can just pass laws saying illegals get nothing from the state right? Just to make it painfully obvious! Then when they are sued for the law standing won’t apply for the statist too, right? I mean I guess the courts could have their cake and eat it too, but bad things happen when that becomes widespread knowledge.

    mgrlno (a2ddfa)

  6. The problem is that they are not “illegal” if the Feds given them work permits. Essentially, the administration is claiming the power to allow immigration contrary to law. This is long past “looking the other way.”

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  7. The states have no say regarding immigration policy. All the states will do is attempt to get money to care for Obama’s illegals.

    What is the status of the House lawsuit against the amnesty? They did file it, right?

    jcurtis (9e02f2)

  8. My position remains this: Anybody that We-The-People have elected to ANY Federal post, who is not standing on the front steps of the Capitol Building day-and-night, screaming about this Administration’s absolute TREASON in not defending our borders, is himself/herself guilty of treason.

    There should ALREADY have been bodies swinging from lampposts, and heads mounted on pikes.

    That our Duly-Electeds still walk the streets of Washington DC without fear shows that our Republic and the ideals it was founded on are long-dead. IMNSHO.

    A_Nonny_Mouse (68a40f)

  9. UPDATE: I should note that on the earlier case, I thought they might grant standing but deny on the merits — and they tossed it on standing. Details.

    The audio of today’s oral argument is here. I have heard about half an hour or so. More later.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  10. Sen. Cruz, who actually won the argument at SCOTUS, is confident that Medellin will not give the appellate courts an out based on standing.

    I stand second to nobody when it comes to a bitter belief that these courts are capable of wholly ignoring the law as it suits their purpose. Yet, I suspect that the politics of today will not play well when it comes to the usual and customary ruling for outcomes and not the law. Congress just might could rear up on this one.

    Ed from SFV (3400a5)

  11. If the states do not have standing to demand that their contract with the Federal government– the Constitution — is actually followed, then all bets are off.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

  12. You mean the one’s who supposedly have every reason to show up for their hearing like Millhouse claimed—incorrectly!

    hadoop (657247)

  13. Milhouse… incorrect?!?! Sweet Jaysus, say it isn’t so!

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  14. JarJar’s real goal:

    Destabilize, isolate, undermine and instantiate martial law.

    DNF (208255)

  15. I have increasing hope for this case. There are almost no MSM reports on the oral argument, which indicates that it went badly for Obama. Had it gone well, it would be above the fold in every paper.

    Kevin M (25bbee)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2321 secs.