5th Circuit Court of Appeals Rules Against Obama's Deferred Immigration Plan

[NotreDame]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/fifth-circuit-obama-immigration/415077/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...st-obama-administration-immigration-policies/

A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has affirmed a federal district court’s nationwide injunction against the Obama administration’s Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) program in Texas v. United States.

Judge Jerry Smith (joined by Judge Jennifer Elrod) concluded that the states had standing to challenge DAPA and were likely to succeed on both their procedural and substantive claims. Among other things, Judge Smith concluded that DAPA is not authorized under existing law, nor is it justified by historical practice.

From the majority opinion:
DAPA would make 4.3 million otherwise removable aliens eligible for lawful presence, employment authorization, and associated benefits, and “we must be guided to a degree by common sense as to the manner in which Congress is likely to delegate a policy decision of such economic and political magnitude to an administrative agency.” DAPA undoubtedly implicates “question of deep ‘economic and political significance’ that [are] central to this statutory scheme; had Congress wished to assign that decision to an agency, it surely would have done so expressly.” [FN: King v. Burwell] But assuming arguendo that Chevron applies and that Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at hand, we would still strike down DAPA as an unreasonable interpretation that is “manifestly contrary” to the INA. . . .​

I especially like the outcome and have yet to read the entirety of the opinion so I will wait to comment upon the strength/weaknesses of the legal arguments made in the case.​

 

[bhsmte]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/11/fifth-circuit-obama-immigration/415077/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...st-obama-administration-immigration-policies/

A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has affirmed a federal district court’s nationwide injunction against the Obama administration’s Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) program in Texas v. United States.

Judge Jerry Smith (joined by Judge Jennifer Elrod) concluded that the states had standing to challenge DAPA and were likely to succeed on both their procedural and substantive claims. Among other things, Judge Smith concluded that DAPA is not authorized under existing law, nor is it justified by historical practice.

From the majority opinion:
DAPA would make 4.3 million otherwise removable aliens eligible for lawful presence, employment authorization, and associated benefits, and “we must be guided to a degree by common sense as to the manner in which Congress is likely to delegate a policy decision of such economic and political magnitude to an administrative agency.” DAPA undoubtedly implicates “question of deep ‘economic and political significance’ that [are] central to this statutory scheme; had Congress wished to assign that decision to an agency, it surely would have done so expressly.” [FN: King v. Burwell] But assuming arguendo that Chevron applies and that Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at hand, we would still strike down DAPA as an unreasonable interpretation that is “manifestly contrary” to the INA. . . .​

I especially like the outcome and have yet to read the entirety of the opinion so I will wait to comment upon the strength/weaknesses of the legal arguments made in the case.​

In your opinion, what does this all mean?

 

[NotreDame]

In your opinion, what does this all mean?

First, the 5th Circuit appeal was in regards to the trial court (district court) enjoining DAPA. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals decided to affirm the trial court's imposition of an injunction of DAPA pending trial.

Reviewing the district court’s order for abuse of discretion, we affirm the preliminary injunction because the states have standing; they have established a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their
procedural and substantive APA claims; and they have satisfied the other elements required for an injunction.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/15/15-40238-CV0.pdf
​

Whether DAPA is indeed lawful has yet to be determined by the trial court or by an appellate court. There will, presumably be a hearing/trial yet to come to determine the legality of the DAPA program by the trial court.

So at this moment, DAPA is presently enjoined, i.e. the judiciary has issued an order to the executive branch to preclude them from following, implementing, and enforcing DAPA. The injunction of DAPA has been upheld by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

 

[Arcangl86]

President Obama has the option to appeal to the Supreme Court to see if they will over turn the preliminary injunction, though considering who the Circuit Justice for the 5th circuit is, that isn't likely. I wonder if this case will ever actually go to trial.