February ....Thread of the month nominees

Falena · Feb 1, 2016

Thank you for participating.
Please post both the entire text and link, along with brief explanation why you find your nomination worthwhile.
Members are encouraged to like their favorite post. At the end of the month, staff will count the likes and announce the best post winner.
We are hoping and emphasizing that members should only nominate posts that meet all posting rules and guidelines. Removing inappropriate nominations will be at the discretion of the PF staff.

waltky · Feb 17, 2016

Yea...

... I nominate who ever posts about problems with the Search function...

... and how come search won't return anything that is posted within the past 30 days??...

... and currently won't work at all???

Doug_yvr · Feb 20, 2016

Here is my nomination for Thread of the Month. Shiva does a good job of putting this together and provides enough relevant information, quotes and links to get readers up to speed on the subject. The quality of the responses so far shows that people are taking the time to formulate a thoughtful response.

Shiva_TD said: ↑

Currently pending before the US Supreme Court is the case of United States v. Texas where Texas challenged the executive order by President Obama that would grant deferred prosecution to about 4.5 million undocumented (illegal) aliens in the United States and provide the means for them to work lawfully in the United States pending the eventual hearing of their immigration case (that could take up to 27 years by many estimates).

As summarized by the Supreme Court blog:

Issue: (1) Whether a state that voluntarily provides a subsidy to all aliens with deferred action has Article III standing and a justiciable cause of action under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to challenge the Secretary of Homeland Securitys guidance seeking to establish a process for considering deferred action for certain aliens because it will lead to more aliens having deferred action; (2) whether the guidance is arbitrary and capricious or otherwise not in accordance with law; (3) whether the guidance was subject to the APAs notice-and-comment procedures; and (4) whether the guidance violates the Take Care Clause of the Constitution, Article II, section 3
Click to expand...

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/united-states-v-texas/

To provide a little background on the prior decisions by the federal district court and court of appeals I'll refer to the Wikipedia summary:

On February 16, 2015, United States District Judge Andrew S. Hanen, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Brownsville Division, issued a preliminary injunction against an executive action taken by President Barack Obama that would have given Illegal immigrants legal status and protection and let them apply for work permits.[why?][1][2] The U.S. government on February 23, 2015 asked the Court to lift the injunction while it appealed his ruling to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans;[3][4] it also proposed that that the Court could issue a partial stay that would allow every state except for Texas to start implementing DAPA.[4]

In an opinion and order published on April 7, 2015, Hanen denied the Governments request to stay the preliminary injunction.[5][6] He affirmed the earlier ruling that the plaintiff states had standing;[7] cited statements made by President Obama regarding the applicability of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) that DHS employees would suffer consequences if they failed to follow the DHS Directive;[further explanation needed][8] denied the DOJ request to apply the injunction only to Texas;[9] and addressed[vague] the issue of irreparable harm both in regards to the federal government and to the states.[10]

On the same day, the Court issued a separate order criticizing the federal government for granting three-year periods of deferred action to 108,081 individuals between the announcement of DAPA and the preliminary injunction,[11][12] despite earlier statements made to the court by the Department of Justice that no action would be taken on these applications.[13] The Court reserved the right to impose sanctions against the federal government's counsel for misrepresenting facts.[14]

United States Court of Appeals[edit]

The Obama Administration appealed the order for a preliminary injunction and asked the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans to stay the district court's injunction pending appeal.[15] On May 26, 2015, the administration's motion for a stay was denied by a three member motions panel with one dissent, meaning that the government could not implement DAPA until the Fifth Circuit ruled on the appeal of the injunction order itself.[16][17][18] Arguments were heard on an expedited basis on July 10, 2015. The ruling came on November 9, 2015, with a three-member panel of the Fifth Circuit affirming the district court's preliminary injunction, over one dissent.[19][20]

The divided circuit court affirmed the preliminary injunction and ordered the case back to the district court for trial.[21] Judge Jerry Edwin Smith, joined by Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod agreed with the district court that Texas has standing because of the cost of issuing drivers licenses to aliens, and that President Obamas order violated the rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.[21] The majority made a new finding that the Immigration and Nationality Act flatly does not permit deferred action.[22] Judge Carolyn Dineen King dissented, arguing that prosecutorial discretion makes the case non-justiciable, and that there had been no justification for the circuit courts delay in ruling.[22]
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Texas#United_States_District_Court

Not a perfect summary but it's good enough to give a general understanding of the case so far.

What should be pointed out is that both the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Brownsville Division, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans did grant "standing" to Texas as the plaintiffs and that is under review by the US Supreme Court.

Additionally the case before the District Court and the Court of Appeals only focused on the procedural issues under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and declined to address the Constitutional issues under "Take Care Clause" of the Constitution, Article II, section 3 that the US Supreme Court has decided to address.

Of final importance is that the Fifth Circuit Court of appeals has limited jurisdiction.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (in case citations, 5th Cir.) is a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following Southern districts:
Eastern District of Louisiana
Middle District of Louisiana
Western District of Louisiana
Northern District of Mississippi
Southern District of Mississippi
Eastern District of Texas
Northern District of Texas
Southern District of Texas
Western District of Texas
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Fifth_Circuit

So what's the risk many will ask. It really is quite obvious because we currently have a Supreme Court with only eight justices.

It's likely that the Supreme Court will split 4-4 in it's decision in which case the lower Appeals Court ruling stands but that decision only has jurisdiction in the noted locations. President Obama is fully authorized to implement his executive order throughout the rest of the United States which is not under the 5th District Court of Appeals juridiction. In short an "undocumented" (illegal) alien could go to Arizona or Colorado and apply for the deferred prosecution, obtaining the documentation including a work visa, and then return to the jurisdiction of the Fifth Curcuit Court of Appeals and not be subjected to the "stay" issued by the Court.

By the time other Federal Courts and Appeals Courts hear the case, if they grant standing which is questionable, those covered by the executive order will already be lawfully in the United States pending the eventual disposition of their immigration case. Basically without a full nine justice Supreme Court the Republicans risk losing on their opposition to Obama's executive order on deferred prosecution related to about 4.5 million "undocumented" (illegal) immigrants in the United States. It would be a fait accompli by President Obama if he chooses to take advantage of a 4-4 split decision by the US Supreme Court. There would be no decision on Constitutionality nor any restriction placed upon President Obama implementation of the executive order outside of the jurisdiction of the Fifth Court of Appeals. In fact the President could even go back to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in an attempt to lift the stay because of the the failure of the Supreme Court to render a decision on the case because of a 4-4 split.

Of course this could all be moot if the Supreme Court happens to rule by five or more justices agreeing that Texas doesn't have standing in the case as that is a very possible outcome. The "Standing" of Texas in the case has always been questionable.
Click to expand...

Link to thread

Log in or Sign up

February ....Thread of the month nominees

Falena Cherry Bomb Staff Member Past Donor

waltky Well-Known Member

Doug_yvr Well-Known Member Past Donor

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

February ....Thread of the month nominees

Falena Cherry Bomb Staff Member Past Donor

waltky Well-Known Member

Doug_yvr Well-Known Member Past Donor

Share This Page

Useful Searches