Texas takes on DACA before the court, says immediate injunction against Obama-era ‘program is crucial for the restoration of the rule of law”

in the vicinity


Texas leads multi-state lawsuit judge in the end IF asks

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, says his challenge.

The state of Texas is seeking a Federal injunction against Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA), a Federal judge in a hearing on Wednesday that the government should be excluded immediately from the exhibition or for the renewal of more permits under the program.

Texas is part of a 10-state coalition, filed a still-pending lawsuit to end DACA in may. The state’s attorney general, Ken Paxton, along with numerous other attorneys General Wednesday asked U.S. district judge Andrew Hanen halt DACA, which protects, which is about 700,000 people from deportation until the court process is completed.

Paxton said in a statement that the lawsuit was “crucial for the restoration of the rule of law to our immigration system.”

The Trump administration has tried to withdraw from the contract DACA Executive, in a manner similar to how the Obama White House implemented the program. But the Federal government blocked a judge of these efforts, said the White house is not legally an Agency program such as DACA under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) – terminate reasons for “arbitrary and capricious”.

But in its motion for a preliminary injunction against the new DACA approvals, and extensions of, Texas turned the argument on its head, saying that in fact it was the Obama administration, not a consequence of the important provisions of the APA, if the policy is implemented.

“DACA violation of the procedural requirements of the APA, because it was created without notice and comment,” Texas, ” the filing stated. Notice and comment procedures, in which the public is aware of pending changes in the law and offered a chance to discuss them, are typically required when a new policy affects the people of substantive rights and interests.


Paxton justified the need for a preliminary injunction — as opposed to waiting for a decision on the merits of the case, with the argument that the state had an urgent legal obligation to protect its citizens, he said, were harmed directly by increasing “health, education and law-enforcement costs” in connection with the IF receiver, as well as the economic competition from illegal immigrants.

“Texas spent about $376,000,000 emergency Medicaid services to illegal aliens over the last 11 years for which data are available,” Texas wrote in its motion for a preliminary injunction. “Also, Texas has spent to provide approximately $6,200,000, family violence program, services for undocumented immigrants in the last 11 years for which data are available.”

But opponents of Texas’ rejected the request for a preliminary injunction, the idea that the state will suffer imminent, irreparable harm.

The Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), said the judge, that the allegations of the IF-receiver draining state resources, “both irrelevant and grossly inflated.”

Nina Perales, a lawyer for MALDEF, the question of why Texas had six years of waiting, to claim that the program is causing “irreparable” harm if it really was such a threat to the residents.

Texas’ attorneys also argued that DACA was an unconstitutional violation of the President has a duty to ensure that laws were carried out adopted by the Congress, true to the original.

The attorneys General of Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, South Carolina and West Virginia joined to make Paxton in the request for a preliminary injunction.

Hanen did not issue an immediate decision on Wednesday. But he asked pointed questions of both sides about how this case in comparison to his decision three years ago against a further expansion of the immigrant protection of Ex-President Obama.

In this case, Hanen ruled against an expansion of the DACA and new protection measures for parents with an immigrant background. A Federal appeals court sided with Hanen and the U.S. Supreme Court split 4-4, so that his judgment in place. Extended protection never entered into force.

Texas has now asked to stop for the Hanen, to create the US government from enforcing Obama’s 2012 memorandum on DACA. Three other Federal judges have ceased to be President of the Trump management of ending DACA.

If Hanen rules in Texas’ favor, said legal experts, that the conflict to the attention of the higher courts and possibly the U.S. Supreme Court.

DACA authorized has brought 700,000 people to the United States illegally as children, a work permit and driver’s licenses.

“Nobody in this case is a bad guy.”

– U.S. district judge Andrew Hanen

On Wednesday, the state’s attorney Todd Disher, the new case, said raised legal issues, the Hanen had already in its previous judgment.

The States sued technically, the US government, because the government is running the program. But with the trump administration’s DACA seeks to the end of, States to support the program intervened to argue along with MALDEF, that the program should remain in force.

A group of people protected by DACA attended the hearing and protested outside the court building after that. Hanen confirmed the attention has received the case and its importance to the IF-receiver is involved in the case, of which he said, “were to live just try to make the best life possible.”

He added, “nobody in this case is a bad guy.”

Hanen lawyers rely on both sides of the issue to submit new registrations from Monday.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Gregg Re is an editor for Fox News. Follow him on Twitter @gregg_re.

Follow us

Don't be shy, get in touch. We love meeting interesting people and making new friends.

Most popular