A federal appeals court on Tuesday denied the Obama administration’s request to lift a hold on the president’s executive actions on immigration, which would have granted protection from deportation as well as work permits to millions of immigrants in the country illegally.That last part is important, because it means that the judges think that the case against the president's actions has a good chance of succeeding.
Two of three judges on a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, left in place an injunction by a Federal District Court judge in Brownsville, Tex. The ruling comes in a lawsuit filed by Texas and 25 other states against actions President Obama took in November. Many of the initiatives were scheduled to take effect this month.
The appeals court found that the states had sufficient legal grounds to bring the lawsuit and that the administration had not shown that it would be harmed if the injunction remained in place and the programs were further delayed.
For their part, Team Obama handled the decision with the usual grace:
“Today, two judges of the Fifth Circuit chose to misrepresent the facts and the law,” a White House spokeswoman, Brandi Hoffine, said. “The president’s actions were designed to bring greater accountability to our broken immigration system, grow the economy and keep our communities safe. They are squarely within the bounds of his authority, and they are the right thing to do for the country.”Emphasis mine. Nothing quite like insulting federal judges to move the argument your way. It's one thing to say you disagree with a decision, it's quite another to allege willful misrepresentation. Don't think that little outburst is going to help the argument as it goes up through the courts.
1 comment:
Straight party line decision--the judges appointed by Republicans carried the day, the one appointed by Obama dissented. Also interesting is that the issue at hand does not seem to flow from the law at hand, but rather the costs of implementing Obama's plans versus those of keeping them.
OK, exactly why do we have legislative elections anymore?
Post a Comment