g***m
发帖数: 15 | 1 A three-judge panel on the Fifth Circuit decides against the administration,
leaving it likely to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court.
President Obama signs two memoranda on immigration in 2014Kevin Lamarque /
Reuters
We noticed that you have an
AD BLOCKER
ENABLED
Please consider disabling it for our site, or supporting our work in one of
these ways
SUBSCRIBE NOW >
Sign up for
The Atlantic Daily newsletter
Email
I want to receive updates from partners and sponsors.
SIGN UP
850 220
MATT FORD 7:12 AM ET
The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals blocked a series of President Obama
’s executive orders on immigration on Friday, frustrating the
administration’s efforts to shield millions of undocumented immigrants from
deportation and setting up a potential showdown at the U.S. Supreme Court.
A three-judge panel ruled against the Obama administration on a 2-1 vote in
Texas v. United States, upholding a lower court’s injunction against two
programs. Obama created one of the programs, called Deferred Action for
Parents of Americans, or DAPA, and expanded another, called Deferred Action
for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA in a unilateral effort to reshape the U.S.
immigration system after the 2014 midterm elections. Texas and 26 other
states sued the United States soon thereafter, in an attempt to halt the
executive actions.
Since the Constitution grants exclusive power over immigration law to the
federal government, the states’ lawsuit might seem quixotic. To circumvent
this, Texas and the other states contend that by granting deferred action to
an estimated five million undocumented immigrants, the Obama administration
’s executive actions force the states to either provide services to them or
change their state laws to avoid doing so. Texas, the only state whose
standing was explicitly recognized by the court, specifically argued that
the immigrants’ “lawful presence” would require the state to provide them
with “state-subsidized driver's licenses”and unemployment insurance.
The Obama administration argues that the changes are well within the
executive branch’s discretionary power to enforce existing immigration law.
But conservative opponents counter that the executive actions are an
unconstitutional usurpation of Congress’s power to write American laws.
President Obama announced his policy change last November after considerable
pressure from immigration-reform activists and Dreamers and in response to
the defeat of comprehensive immigration reform in Congress.
In their decision, two judges sided with the states and the lower court in
Texas, citing both the impact on Texas and the breadth of the Obama
administration's changes as reasons to uphold the injunction. “At its core,
this case is about the Secretary’s decision to change the immigration
classification of millions of illegal aliens on a class-wide basis,” wrote
Judge Jerry Smith in his majority opinion.
The administration's interpretation of the Immigration and Naturalization
Act, Smith wrote, would effectively vest the Secretary of Homeland Security
with the power “to grant lawful presence and work authorization to any
illegal alien in the United States—an untenable position in light of the
INA’s intricate system of immigration classifications and employment
eligibility.” In other words, Smith wrote, “the INA flatly does not permit
the reclassification of millions of illegal aliens as lawfully present and
thereby make them newly eligible for a host of federal and state benefits,
including work authorization.”
In her dissent, the third judge, Carolyn King, counseled judicial restraint
in what she framed as a policy dispute instead of a legal one. “Because the
DAPA Memorandum contains only guidelines for the exercise of prosecutorial
discretion and does not itself confer any benefits to DAPA recipients, I
would deem this case non-justiciable," she wrote. “The policy decisions at
issue in this case are best resolved not by judicial fiat, but via the
political process.”
King then dives into a lengthy, point-by-point rebuttal of the majority’s
interpretation of Texas’s standing to challenge the executive actions,
their assertion that the creation of DAPA violated the Administrative
Procedure Act, and their other conclusions about the case. Her colleagues,
in an unusual step, praised a dissent that strenuously criticized them. “
Our dedicated colleague has penned a careful dissent, with which we largely
but respectfully disagree,” the other two judges said in a footnote. “It
is well-researched, however, and bears a careful read.” She did not return
their praise. “I have a firm and definite conviction that a mistake has
been made,” King concluded.
The White House has yet to officially respond to the Fifth Circuit’s long-
awaited decision, which was handed down on a Monday night, but some
officials have quietly voiced their frustrations. "We strongly disagree with
the Fifth Circuit’s decision. The Supreme Court and Congress have made
clear that the federal government can set priorities in enforcing our
immigration laws," an unnamed White House official told Politico.
The Obama administration’s next step after its defeat in the Fifth Circuit
would be an appeal to the Supreme Court, which began its 2015-2016 term last
month. In June, my colleague David Graham wrote about some activists’
hopes that a Supreme Court showdown could make immigration reform the
central issue of the 2016 elections.
Advocates hope that such a decision would make candidates of both parties,
but particularly Republicans, take a stand on a specific immigration
question. Rather than simply being able to say that they support
comprehensive immigration reform—a vague statement—they will be asked what
their views are on a clear legal matter, noted Clarissa Martínez-De-Castro
, deputy vice president of the National Council of La Raza. The issue plays
in down-ballot elections, too. There are Senate elections in several states
with large Latino populations that are expected to be close, including
Illinois, Florida, Nevada, and Colorado.
To get the case before the Court will require some alacrity from the Justice
Department. As South Texas College of Law professor Josh Blackman noted,
the Obama administration is under a tight deadline this month to ensure the
case is decided during the last full Supreme Court term of his presidency.
[Texas's] brief in opposition must be filed 30 days after the case is “
placed on the docket.” Therefore, if the [Obama administration’s] cert
petition is filed anytime between now and November 20 or so, Texas’s brief
in opposition would be filed on or before December 22, and the petition
could be distributed for the January 8 conference.
The only wild card is if Texas either (a) waives the brief in opposition,
forcing the Court to order them to file one, and thus stretching the clock
or (b) requests an extension, pushing us past the January 8 conference. But
in all likelihood, this case will be argued the last week in April or the
first week in May of 2016, with a decision in June 2016.
That assumes that the justices would accept the case if given the
opportunity—a strong possibility, but a far from certain conclusion. If the
Supreme Court declines to hear the case, the lower court's preliminary
injunction would stand until the case’s final resolution, which could come
under a new president. | N****1
发帖数: 1117 | 2 等一会儿读，先捞饼，给老公带去学校。。。。
thank you for the info..
administration,
of
【在 g***m 的大作中提到】
: A three-judge panel on the Fifth Circuit decides against the administration,
: leaving it likely to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court.
: President Obama signs two memoranda on immigration in 2014Kevin Lamarque /
: Reuters
: We noticed that you have an
: AD BLOCKER
: ENABLED
: Please consider disabling it for our site, or supporting our work in one of
: these ways
:
| S**C
发帖数: 2964 | 3 No the 5th circuit court (as well the district court in TX) did not rule on
the merit (constitutional or not) of the lawsuit, rather, it agrees that the
26 states do have legal standing, and has good chance to win in their
lawsuit, therefore the injunction.
administration,
of
【在 g***m 的大作中提到】
: A three-judge panel on the Fifth Circuit decides against the administration,
: leaving it likely to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court.
: President Obama signs two memoranda on immigration in 2014Kevin Lamarque /
: Reuters
: We noticed that you have an
: AD BLOCKER
: ENABLED
: Please consider disabling it for our site, or supporting our work in one of
: these ways
:
| A***u
发帖数: 3714 | 4 what is the point,求载要。。。
谢谢。。给载要的话，我给包子的，在包子上我很大方的。。。
哇哈哈 | A***u
发帖数: 3714 | 5 大妈不懂英语，很自卑。。。全屏的鸟文，我自卑死了。。。
5555
administration,
of
【在 g***m 的大作中提到】
: A three-judge panel on the Fifth Circuit decides against the administration,
: leaving it likely to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court.
: President Obama signs two memoranda on immigration in 2014Kevin Lamarque /
: Reuters
: We noticed that you have an
: AD BLOCKER
: ENABLED
: Please consider disabling it for our site, or supporting our work in one of
: these ways
:
| l****z
发帖数: 29846 | 6 州方面完全没有错阿. 尽管federal是管移民的, 但不是说DHS一长嘴说那些非法移民现
在都合法了就可以了. 否则要那些立法司法机构干什么? 行政机构直接决定就可以了. |
|
