POSTED ON FEBRUARY 18, 2015 BY PAUL MIRENGOFF IN IMMIGRATION, LAW

WILL OBAMA’S DEFEAT ON HIS IMMIGRATION ORDER BE SUSTAINED?

When I first heard that Judge Andrew Hanen had blocked President Obama’s executive order granting lawful status to as many as five million illegal immigrants, I was inclined to downplay the ruling’s significance. Judge Hanen is an able jurist, but a conservative one, and only a district court judge. The opinions that truly matter will be rendered by less conservative judges further up the ladder.

That’s still, perhaps, the best way of looking at it. But the quality of the arguments isn’t always irrelevant to the outcome of cases of enormous political moment. And the arguments Judge Hanen makes are quite strong.

As Michael McConnell points out, Hanen did not rest his decision on the Obama administration’s refusal, as an alleged act of prosecutorial discretion, to enforce the ban on staying in the U.S. illegally as applied to millions of illegal immigrants. Rather, his ruling is confined to the most egregious feature of the executive order — the grant to illegal immigrants of work authorization and benefits. Granting these sorts of affirmative favors has never been a matter of prosecutorial discretion, nor can it sensibly be viewed as such.

Administration lawyers stressed that Presidents Reagan and Bush 41 granted temporary status to certain classes of aliens without statutory authority. Judge Henen responded that these actions were never reviewed in court, and that past executive actions cannot serve as precedent for future expansions of executive power.

In addition, Judge Hanen was easily able to distinguish past executive actions in favor of illegal immigrants from Obama’s. The prior instances involved small categories of aliens to whom Congress had granted special status and who merely needed a brief temporary bridge so they could take advantage of the status Congress provided. Here, by contrast, millions of aliens are granted a change of status they are not eligible for under any provision enacted by Congress.

McConnell concludes that, given the narrowness of the decision and the quality of its reasoning, “it will not be easy for the administration’s lawyers to persuade those courts that Judge Hanen got the law wrong.”

I’m less confident of this, but more confident than I was before I read the opinion and Judge McConnell’s column.

_____________________________________________________________________

POSTED ON FEBRUARY 19, 2015 BY PAUL MIRENGOFF IN IMMIGRATION, LAW

WILL OBAMA’S IMMIGRATION DEFEAT BE SUSTAINED — PART TWO

In my post last night about the district court decision blocking President Obama’s executive order granting lawful status to as many as five million illegal immigrants, I did not discuss the important threshold issue in the case — whether the plaintiff states have standing to challenge the order. Judge Hanen found that they do. I believe this finding is well-reasoned and correct.

Texas argued, and Judge Hanen agreed, that Obama’s executive order, by granting legal status to illegal immigrants, will cause the state to have to issue drivers licenses on a large scale. This, in turn, will impose costs. Texas presented solid evidence that the cost would be in excess of several million of dollars — easily enough to confer standing on it.

The counter-argument is that Texas could change its laws to deny licenses to those whose status is changed via the executive order. Ironically, though, the Justice Department previously argued, in a case arising from Arizona, that it is unconstitutional to deny drivers licenses to beneficiaries. The Ninth Circuit agreed with DOJ.

Judge Hanen found that although the Ninth Circuit’s decision is not binding in Texas, it “suggests that Plaintiffs’ options to avoid the injuries associated with the [Executive Order] are virtually non-existent and, if attempted, will be met with significant challenges from the federal government,” challenges that are likely to be upheld.

Moreover, even if the costs of issuing licences could be avoided by restructuring the license issuing program, this would require the state to deny licenses to individuals it has previously determined are entitled to them. This itself is “a significant intrusion into an area traditionally reserved to a state’s judgment,” Judge Hanen observed.

In my view, Judge Hanen’s analysis provides Texas with a strong platform from which to defend his decision as the case progresses through the appeals process. But let’s keep in mind that “standing” is a notoriously manipulable doctrine. Thus, it would be within the capability of a judge (or Justice) inclined to rule in the Obama administration’s favor to reject Judge Hanen’s reasoning and toss the case for lack of standing.