[HOME ] [ABOUT] [PHOTOS] [VIDEO] [BLOG] [HOUSTON] [TEXAS] [U.S. NEWS] [WORLD NEWS] [SPORTS] [POP CULTURE] [CONTACT] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appeals Court Rules Against Obama in Favor of Texas
by Joseph Earnest May 27, 2015
Newscast Media HOUSTON—The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit has thrown cold water on Obama's request to lift an injunction by a lower court's ruling that would defer deportation of illegal immigrants.
The program was introduced through executive action by President Barack Obama last November, but Texas along with 25 other states sued the government to shut down the program. The states sued to prevent its implementation. First, they claimed that the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents ("DAPA") program is procedurally unlawful because it is a substantive rule that is required to undergo notice and comment under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), but Department of Homeland Security had not followed those procedures to occur. The district court held that Texas had standing because it would be required to issue driver’s licenses to DAPA beneficiaries, and the costs of doing so would constitute a cognizable injury. In addition, since the states accused Obama of violating the Take Care Clause of the Constitution, the lower court held that Texas had standing based on a theory it called "abdication standing," under which a state has standing if the government has exclusive authority over a particular policy area but declines to act. 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 Article II, section 3, states: "He shall from time to time give to the Congress The last clause is called the "Take Care Clause" or "Faithfully Executed Clause." The 5th Circuit opined: “We consider four factors in deciding whether to grant a stay pending appeal: ‘(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.’” On the first point, the 5th Circuit said the government was not likely to succeed on the merits of its claim that the states lack standing, since Texas demonstrated standing. 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. The 5th Circuit held, a plaintiff suffers an injury even if it can avoid that injury by incurring other costs. And being pressured to change state law constitutes an injury. "[S]tates have a sovereign interest in ‘the power to create and enforce a legal code.'"
The judges reasoned, "If pressure to change state law in some substantial way were not injury, states would have no standing to challenge bona fide harms because they could offset most financial losses by raising taxes or fees. Texas’s forced choice between incurring costs and changing its laws is an injury because those laws exist for the administration of a state program, not to challenge federal law, and Texas did not enact them merely to create standing."
The 5th Circuit also ruled that the remaining factors also favor the states. "The United States has not demonstrated that it will be irreparably injured absent a stay. It claims that the injunction offends separation of powers and federalism, but it is the resolution of the case on the merits, not whether the injunction is stayed pending appeal, that will affect those principles." The last factor, "where the public interest lies," also went against Obama. In the end, Texas won the day as the judges denied Obama's motion to lift the injunction. They opined: "The public interest favors maintenance of the injunction, and even if that were not so, in light of the fact that the first three factors favor the states and that the injunction merely maintains the status quo while the court considers the issue, a stay pending appeal is far from justified." Click here to read extract from ruling. (pop-up) Since two of the three judges ruled against Obama, the White House disagreed with the ruling and said in part, "Today, two judges of the Fifth Circuit chose to misinterpret the facts and the law in denying the government’s request for a stay."
Click here to read or download entire ruling of the 5th Circuit. (pop-up)
It remains to be seen what action Obama will take after this ruling.
Add Comments>>
|
|
Join the Newscast Media social networks for current events and multimedia content.
|
Copyright© Newscast Media. All Rights Reserved. Terms and Privacy Policy |