Two judicial rulings yesterday, one in Obama’s favor and one against. However, the ruling released late last night shows a crafty piece of judicial chess.
The first ruling yesterday was a 5th Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Mississippi VS DHS (more here). The 5th circuit ruled against the State of Mississippi, and in favor of the Obama DOJ, by essentially ruling the State failed to prove a burden of harm.
The second aspect inherent within the same 5th CCA ruling disregarded concerns of ICE/DHS retaliation -against border patrol enforcement- by asserting DHS rules forbid the retaliation; ergo the concerns were unfounded.
In the second issue, the ICE agents’ argument that they would receive retribution if they detained an illegal immigrant eligible for DACA, the court sided with ICE and DHS referencing handbooks and rules which forbid the administration from retribution. (link)
However, in the second case, the ruling late last night, Texas vs DHS, under the authority of Judge Andrew Hanen, the expanded Obama Executive Action was blocked from implementation in February.
Judge Hanen issued an emergency injunction stopping the expanded deferment authorization as outlined in President Obama’s November 2014 executive action.
Since the initial ruling the DOJ was now arguing for a lifting of that injunction, and Judge Hanen was having none of it.
A significant statement from Judge Hanen toward the DOJ attorneys was his admonishment for their prior misrepresentations to the court regarding implementation taking place. The DOJ had previously stated in court that DHS was not implementing the new “expanded executive action” yet, and any injunction would stop any adverse action.
It was later discovered –by an admission to the court– that DHS had, in actuality, already begun to implement the November “executive action”. Judge Hanen was understandably angered by the misrepresentation. (more…)
