Tuesday, February 17, 2015

What the block on Obama's immigration action means

Vox has it.

-- Relief is delayed for millions of people

Here's what this means: Until this ruling is reversed or a different ruling comes down in the future, the federal government isn't allowed to do anything to implement either of the new programs President Obama announced in November to protect unauthorized immigrants from deportation.

Between the two programs, millions of immigrants were supposed to be eligible for deferred action (three years of protection from deportation) and work permits. Neither of those programs had actually started accepting applications yet, although one was supposed to start on Wednesday. Now they won't be able to start until further notice.

[...]

-- Why this is a serious threat to Obama's immigration policy

[...]

When the administration created the first deferred-action program in 2012, for young unauthorized immigrants, they discovered the success of the program relied on people signing up — and on the ground, organizers learned that finding eligible immigrants and getting them to apply was the hardest part. Now, community groups are trying to educate a much larger, more diffuse immigrant population about the new deferred-action programs, and persuade them that it's safe to apply. But news and misinformation about the lawsuit is spreading confusion and fear among the very people these groups are trying to reach.

Organizers are worried about a "chilling effect": by the time applications do open for deferred action, immigrants will have been intimidated out of applying, because they won't believe the program is safe or permanent.

-- Does this mean Obama's executive actions have been found unconstitutional?

No. The reason that Judge Hanen is stopping Obama's actions actually isn't about the Constitution at all. As Josh Blackman, a professor at the South Texas College of Law who filed a brief on behalf of the states in this case, says, "Generally, courts will not reach the constitutional question unless they need to."

Instead, Hanen's ruling is about a procedural law called the Administrative Procedures Act, and in particular the "notice and comment requirement" which is the typical procedure for making federal regulations. According to Cecilia Wang, Director of the Immigrant Rights Project for the ACLU, Hanen's ruling says that "if (the government) wanted to do these things it should have provided notice in the Federal Register, with period for comment." But because the Obama administration didn't do that for these actions, the ruling says, it violated the law.

Furthermore, this isn't even Judge Hanen's final opinion on the matter. This ruling is an injunction: it means that while Judge Hanen hasn't decided whether or not the president's executive actions are unconstitutional or illegal, the government has to stop acting on them while the judge makes up his mind.

[...]

-- What happens next?

At this point, it's up to the Department of Justice to decide whether they want to ask for a stay — basically, something to enjoin the injunction. They're (obviously) expected to do that. Then it'll be up to the Fifth Circuit to consider the stay. If they side with the federal government, the program will start running again; if they shoot down the federal government again, implementation will have to wait.

The ruling on the stay will determine whether or not the president's policies move forward for the next several months. During that time, the Fifth Circuit will be considering whether to uphold Judge Hanen's injunction. That could take four to five months, if they fast track the case, or seven to eight months if they don't. At the end of that time, they'll have another opportunity to stop the program or restart it: even if they grant the government a stay this winter, if they uphold Judge Hanen's ruling later in the year, the government has to stop again.

Meanwhile, Judge Hanen himself still has to issue his final ruling on whether or not the executive actions were constitutional.

ThinkProgress.

-- The Silver Lining

Ironically, however, the fact that Hanen’s opinion casts a cloud of doubt over the legality of DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) may be its most hopeful sign for undocumented immigrants. The Arizona decision did not simply emphasize the executive branch’s “broad discretion” over many immigration-related matters, it was handed down just days after Obama announced the DACA program. Indeed, Justice Antonin Scalia railed against DACA in his opinion dissenting from the majority in Arizona.

If a majority of the justices found DACA legally problematic, it would be very unusual for them to emphasize the scope of the executive branch’s discretion just days after President Obama announced the DACA program. It would be even more unusual for them to do so when one of their brethren specifically criticized that policy in dissent.

The fact that Hanen’s logic appears to extend to DACA, in other words, may be Hanen’s undoing. A majority of the Supreme Court, including two of the Court’s Republicans, have already hinted that Hanen’s opinion is wrong.

So to summarize: Greg Abbott went shopping for a federal judge to rule in his favor, found one, got just what he wanted, and now the case slowly moves on to the Fifth Circuit, and from there to the Supreme Court.

Abbott will, by all appearances, eventually lose yet another lawsuit to the feds, with which he has a .230 batting average to this point.  That's bottom-third of the lineup, and on some teams, worth a seat on the bench (not the judicial one, the pine one).  Another typical lose-even-as-he-thinks-he's-won scenario for Abbott.  And his conservative base will only complain about his waste of taxpayer dollars, activist judges, and frivolous lawsuits when they get beaten.

Update: Judge Hanen is a crank, and the injunction creates lots of hurdles for the administration to clear.  Which was precisely his point.

Monday, February 16, 2015

The Weekly Wrangle

The Texas Progressive Alliance sends warm thoughts to everyone who's digging themselves out from under the snow again as it brings you this week's roundup of the best of the Lone Star lefty blogs from last week.


Off the Kuff reports on opposition to the proposed high speed rail line.

Libby Shaw, writing for Texas Kaos and contributing to Daily Kos, is appalled by efforts to pass an open carry law in Texas. What should Texans fear the most? ISIS or Open Carry?

CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme is tired of Republicans using hurtful, hateful tactics to appease their racist base and cause harm to the people in the Valley.

Neil at All People Have Value wrote about the ongoing federal cover-up of a plot to kill members of Occupy Houston in 2011. Occupy Houston protestors were peaceful people. APHV is part of NeilAquino.com.

WCNews at Eye on Williamson notes that the Texas GOP plans to give the wealthy in Texas a tax cut, no matter what. The cost will be high for everyone else: The Cost of Tax Cuts.

Texas Leftist reports on the most significant changes to the Houston region's public transit infrastructure since the creation of METRO. With System Reimagining now approved and the final route maps in selected, transit in Texas' largest city will never be the same.

Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein is coming to Denton this weekend, and Houston next week, as part of the kickoff to her bid for the presidency of the US. PDidddie at Brains and Eggs has the details.

The Lewisville Texan-Journal updates the list of events for the area this coming week.

Egberto Willies reminds us not to overlook that 'atheist' part about the man who shot three Muslim honor students in North Carolina.

Dos Centavos was on the scene for the Americans United presentation on "The Bible in Texas Schools? Why Not?"

And jobsanger emphasizes that Dan Patrick's desire to keep Texas National Guard troops on the Rio Grande border is butting heads with fiscal responsibility.

=======================

And here are some posts of interest from other Lone Star bloggers.

The Anti-Media has a list of the ticking time bombs in Texas.

Moving forward after the jury verdict in Houston's equal rights ordinance trial, Free Press Houston says that we still need a HERO.

Socratic Gadfly points out that state Rep. Molly White is one of the many reasons that we just can't have nice things in Texas.

Lone Star Ma calls on doctors to do a better job explaining the need for vaccinations.

Texas Vox would like you to tell President Obama to veto the Keystone XL pipeline, while Tar Sands Blockade wants us to remember that KXL South is already fully operational.

Jef Rouner and his five-year-old daughter encounter an open carry demonstration.

Purple City sees cultural undertones in the opposition to the proposed high speed rail line in Texas.

Texans Together reports on the State of Black Houston 2015.

Jeff Balke goes back to high school to explore when kids and faith collide.

Grits for Breakfast is encouraged by the possibility of grand jury reform.

Austin Contrarian demonstrates how street design can lead to major traffic problems.

Joe the Pleb at BOR takes a look at the Texas rebels who are up in arms about a 13-year-old boy's plan to rename "Confederate Heroes Day".

Finally, Fascist Dyke Motors is welcoming our new aquatic overlords in her post entitled "Phantom Fins of Pharmacology".