Constitutional Conflicts, Immigration

What you need to know about the big immigration hearing

(This article was originally published at Latino Rebels.)

Yesterday, a federal judge in Brownsville, Texas, heard arguments from 25 states and the federal government on whether to block President Obama’s executive order on immigration. Here’s what you need to know about Texas v. United States, the name the case has been assigned:

1) This Is Only the Beginning of the Lawsuit

The case before U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen, a George W. Bush appointee, is still in its infancy stages. A trial, if one occurs at all, is still long ways away. But yesterday’s hearing was important because it could signal what could occur at trial. One of the questions Judge Hanen will be deciding is the states’ “likelihood of success on the merits”—that is, the likelihood that they actually have a winning case.

So far, that question is up in the air. Late last year, a federal judge in Washington, D.C. threw out a similar lawsuit by Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio, noting in her decision that the sheriff likely could not win on his claim that the president acted unconstitutionally when he issued his new immigration directive. Part of yesterday’s hearing centered on this constitutional argument.

2) That said, the Judge Won’t Be Ruling on the Constitutionality of the Program

“This lawsuit is not about immigration. It is about the rule of law, presidential power, and the structural limits of the U.S. Constitution,” the states argued in court documents. That’s the bottom line of the states’ lawsuit: they seek the invalidation of the program on constitutional grounds. But the court won’t be deciding the constitutionality of the program. At least not yet.

Though that question certainly reared its head in yesterday’s hearing, Hanen will only be deciding whether to grant a preliminary injunction, an extraordinary remedy that prevents the allegedly offending party from hurting the party that’s suing—here, the federal government and the several states, respectively. It’s similar to a restraining order, a temporary court order that forbids conduct while the court reaches a final decision on a matter.

But the Supreme Court has said that a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary measure—courts shouldn’t grant them lightly. Which is why yesterday’s hearing was a big deal. And the burden will be on Texas and the other states to make a clear showing that they’re entitled to an order that puts a stop to the program.

3) To Grant an Injunction, the Judge Will Rule on Whether the Executive Order Causes Harm.

A key dispute the judge will decide is whether President Obama’s immigration order somehow “injures” the suing states. But the federal government and the states are interested in this particular dispute for different reasons.

The Obama administration argues the executive order doesn’t harm the states at all and thus the lawsuit should be dismissed altogether—that the states lack “standing” to sue. The government contends that the new deferred-action policy doesn’t mandate the states to take any action; the states aren’t themselves targeted by it. And because the states are “neither prosecuted nor threatened with prosecution” as a result of the executive order, they’re essentially third parties without a stake in government’s policy choices regarding immigration. They have no business bringing this lawsuit.

The states, on the other hand, not only argue that the executive order does harm them, but that it also “irreparably” harms them—that it injures them so severely that the judge must order an injunction to stop the program from even taking effect. The states assert, among other things, that the immigration plan imposes huge administrative costs on them, that it will set off a new wave of illegal immigration leading to another “humanitarian crisis” in border states, and that beneficiaries will be eligible for state programs that they otherwise wouldn’t be eligible for.

4) Which Side Has the Better Case?

There is broad consensus that the president has the better argument. A number of legal scholars and immigration experts have come out in favor of the constitutionality of President Obama’s executive order, which finds its roots in existing immigration law and longstanding prosecutorial discretion—the president’s prerogative to enforce or not enforce the laws with respect to deportations. And because Congress is in charge of passing immigration laws—yesterday, the House of Representatives did just that—Judge Hanen may be disinclined to settle a dispute between co-elected branches.

The federal government also has some allies. A coalition of 12 states filed a legal document in support of the new policy, arguing that its effects are beneficial for local economies. And an alliance of police chiefs from major cities submitted court documents arguing that the president’s order helps to “to effectively police and protect the communities they serve.” The aim of both these groups is clearly to counter the states’ claims that the new immigration policy harms them.

Some opponents of the measure, such as libertarian think-tank Cato Institute, do not focus so much on the harm aspect—in fact, the group thinks it’s “good policy”—but merely argue that the president engaged in executive overreach. They contend, among other things, that Obama violated the Constitution by failing to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed” and enacting a policy that simply advanced his agenda. Cato maintains that the new immigration order is in direct conflict with the will of Congress as expressed in immigration laws currently on the books.

This is a point to watch—Obama has said on numerous occasions that he can only act within the parameters of the law. A finding that the immigration order actually violates federal law would indeed undermine the whole program. But Judge Hanen won’t be deciding that any time soon—he’ll only decide the likelihood that that might be the case.

5) What’s Next?

A small waiting period. Because Texas and the other states are only seeking temporary relief, an order from the judge granting or denying the injunction shouldn’t take long—at the hearing, Judge Hanen said he won’t rule until after Jan. 30. (The judge who ruled on Joe Arpaio’s case only took one day to rule.)

If the federal government wins, the injunction would be denied and the case would be dismissed; the repercussions, other than an appeal, would be minor. A win for the states, however, could potentially deal a huge blow to the Obama administration and immigration advocacy groups, which have been engaging in significant prep work ahead of the new program’s rollout. It could cause major disruption unless a higher court intervenes. Win or lose, there would probably be an appeal. And given the significance of the executive order on immigration, the case might even reach the Supreme Court—before it even goes to trial.

Whatever the outcome, yesterday’s hearing is only the beginning of a case that could potentially drag on for years, politicizing the issue of immigration further as the litigation advancess. Since there’s agreement that millions would benefit from the new executive order, the quicker the court makes a decision and eliminates uncertainty, the better.

Immigration, Other Legal Battles

D.C. judge tosses Joe Arpaio’s immigration lawsuit

(A version of this article first appeared at Latino Rebels.)

Late Wednesday evening, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., dismissed a lawsuit filed by Ariz. sheriff Joe Arpaio challenging the legality of President Obama’s executive action on immigration.

In a 33-page ruling issued a day after the court heard arguments from the parties, U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell tossed the suit on “standing” grounds, noting that Arpaio only stated “generalized grievances” about the new immigration policy, but failed to point to a “concrete and particularized injury” requiring court intervention.

The judge anchored her ruling on “long-existing regulations” governing deferred action, which are rooted in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and have long served as the basis for granting work authorization to undocumented immigrants.

“For almost twenty years, the use of deferred action programs has been a staple of immigration enforcement,” Howell wrote, noting the various ways the federal government has provided such a relief over time.

Arpaio was seeking to put a stop to the program temporarily while the case was litigated in court, but the federal government responded to Arpaio with a request of its own seeking dismissal of the entire case.

Interestingly, much of the court’s reasoning derived from another Arizona case, Arizona v. United States, the landmark Supreme Court case striking down key provisions of SB1070, the state’s infamous show-me-your-papers law. That case made clear that “state law enforcement and other officials have no authority” over immigration matters, which are the exclusive province of the federal government.

The court also brushed aside Arpaio’s pleas that allowing the president’s plan to move forward would lead to threats to his life, that it somehow would make his work as sheriff harder and more costly, and that the new policy would turn Arizona into a “magnet” for new immigrants, particularly criminals.

According to POLITICO, Arpaio attorney Larry Klayman has already appealed the decision, which he called “weak.”

Reaction to Arpaio’s latest news spread quickly last night on social media, with several immigrant rights activists weighing in on the decision. One social-media banner branded Arpaio a “loser.”

In a footnote, Judge Schwab also took a moment to address a recent federal court ruling out of Pennsylvania invalidating the new immigration policy. She deemed that ruling unpersuasive, in part because of the strange manner the judge reached his decision.

Shwab’s opinion serves as an important blueprint for what a federal court in Texas might do with a similar lawsuit by Gov.-elect Greg Abbott challenging the president’s executive plan. Since that case was filed, a number of other states have joined the lawsuit, the most recent being Tennessee, according to Nashville Scene.

Civil Rights, Immigration

Arizona must grant driver’s licenses to dreamers

(A version of this post first appeared at Latino Rebels.)

In a short order issued Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Arizona’s last-ditch request to block issuance of driver’s licenses to undocumented students granted deportation relief under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

This lawsuit has been moving through the courts for years. Shortly after DACA was announced in 2012, the administration of outgoing Gov. Jan Brewer issued an order prohibiting beneficiaries under DACA to obtain driver’s licenses, arguing the program’s work authorizations were not sufficient proof of legal status. A number of civil rights organizations joined forces to challenge the legality of Brewer’s order in federal court.

In July, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the federal appeals court with jurisdiction over Arizona, agreed with the civil rights organizations that Brewer’s policy was likely discriminatory towards undocumented youth. The court ordered the Arizona Motor Vehicle Division to treat the students as they would other noncitizens who can show employment authorization documents as proof of residency.

Dissatisfied with the decision, Arizona asked the same court for a rehearing, which was denied. Finally, Arizona asked the Supreme Court to halt the Ninth Circuit’s ruling. The high court denied that request on Wednesday.

Interestingly, three justices—Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas—would have temporarily granted Arizona’s request to halt driver’s licenses. The same justices dissented in the 2012 case Arizona v. United States, which struck down important parts of SB1070, Arizona’s infamous show-me-your-papers law.

The case is not over: Arizona only requested a halt to the order forcing the state to accept DREAMers’ papers for purposes of driver’s licenses. The case is technically still “live” in the lower courts, which means there hasn’t been a definitive pronouncement that Brewer’s policy is unconstitutional.

But given the July ruling and today’s move by the Supreme Court, it’s likely Arizona will seek a settlement with the plaintiffs, unless Gov.-elect Doug Ducey, who has faced pressure to discontinue the policy, continues defending the lawsuit. According to, Arizona is one of two states preventing so-called DREAMers from obtaining driver’s licenses.

Arizona’s loss before the Supreme Court arrives a day after U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Schwab, a George W. Bush appointee who sits in Pennsylvania, struck down President Obama’s executive action on immigration, which is set to expand the original DACA program to include parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents, among other provisions.

The ruling, which arrived less than a month since the president’s announcement, has been sharply criticized by legal scholars and commentators. Orin Kerr, a law professor at George Washington University, called the decision “exceedingly strange.”

In a statement reported by The Huffington Post, a Justice Department spokesperson called the Schwab’s decision “unfounded” and noted that an appropriate response was forthcoming.

Other challenges to Obama’s immigration order, from Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio and a group of more than a dozen conservative governors led by Texas Gov.-elect Greg Abbott, have been initiated in federal courts in Washington, D.C., and Texas.

Immigration, Media

Jimmy is off on #ImmigrationAction

Jimmy Fallon and NBC’s Nightly News host Brian Williams are the unlikeliest of partners, and yet they continue to collaborate and delight on The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon.

One of the duo’s most viewed clips on YouTube is a Williams rendition of “Rapper’s Delight,” a work of genius featuring hundreds of Williams fragments from various Nightly News broadcasts and other segments, all to the beat of an American classic. It was television at its finest.

But Fallon and Williams were off Tuesday in their latest offering of another popular feature, “Slow Jam the News,” a musical bit where the pair, backed by house band The Roots, reads the news of the moment to the beat of an introspective, R&B groove.

This time, the topic was President Obama’s executive action on immigration—indeed an important subject and one deserving of a further push into the mainstream. What could go wrong?

Alas, everything. Neither Fallon nor Williams appear to have done their homework on the matter, and instead let the segment air as is—filled with misinformation, legal errors, and even damning stereotypes more befitting a Rush Limbaugh rant than something a beloved funnyman and a respected anchorman might come up with. It was a hot mess.

Here’s the clip:

Williams’s opening flow was flat-out wrong from beginning to end:

“President Obama signed an executive order that granted temporary legal status to five million undocumented workers and provided a path to citizenship for those that meet certain criteria, thus giving new immigrants a new way to enter our country.”

For one, there’s the fiction that with the stroke of a pen Obama “granted” deferred action to undocumented immigrants, as if nothing were required on their end to accede to the program’s benefits—no application process, no background check, no payment of back taxes, no fee. It assumes a work permit will magically show up on the doorsteps of five million people.

There’s also the falsity that the president’s action only benefits workers, when the universe of beneficiaries is much larger—DREAMers, the parents of American citizens and permanent residents, and others such as victims of crime and those with pending cases.

The “legal status” bit is also wrong, because legal status would mean being on equal footing with green-card holders, which Obama’s executive plan certainly does not promise. Social Security benefits may accrue and become available after 10 years of paying into the system—hopefully comprehensive immigration reform will be a reality before then—but no significant federal benefits other than a work permit will flow to beneficiaries. No federal financial aid. No welfare. No food stamps. No healthcare or housing subsidies.

Perhaps the most egregious untruth of all is that Obama’s immigration plan offers “a path to citizenship.” That would be amnesty, something the president can’t and won’t do without Congress. Feeding the notion that the plan promises naturalization only lends credence to the cries of “lawlessness” and unconstitutionality that have plagued the new policy since even before it was formally announced.

Finally, there’s the assertion that the new executive plan gives immigrants “a new way to enter our country.” This goes to the heart of the same conservative fears—long proven unfounded—that the original Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy somehow caused the surge of unaccompanied children at the border. That was not the case, and harping on this misleading falsehood only compounds anti-immigrant sentiment.

As if all of the above weren’t already bad, The Roots’ Tariq Trotter, the soulful partner of Fallon and Williams, gets away with a stereotypical line that doesn’t even merit serious analysis: “They’re lining up to get inside the U.S.A. . . . just like it was at Kmart on Black Friday.”

As irony would have it, we learn at the end of the slow jam that the comedy bit coincided with Williams’ 10th anniversary as host of Nightly News. What a way to celebrate.

Constitutional Conflicts, Immigration

The edifice of government won’t collapse

The day after the midterm elections, Sen. Ted Cruz sent a letter to Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader.

Oddly, the subject matter wasn’t the resounding Republican victory, but an impending “constitutional crisis”: President Obama’s plan to use executive action on immigration. Cruz urged Reid to use the lame-duck session to “restore the separation of powers.”

Lofty language, but America is not on the brink of a constitutional crisis.

Perhaps the closest the country ever came to one was in 1937, when Franklin D. Roosevelt, unhappy with the Supreme Court’s animosity towards New Deal policies, pushed for legislation aimed at filling the court with justices friendly to his economic ideals.

Had Roosevelt’s “court-packing” plan worked, it would’ve been a true constitutional crisis: A president wielding his power to convince Congress to change the makeup of an independent judiciary, for the sole purpose of rubberstamping legislation he liked.

In other words, getting all ducks in a row. Separation of powers would have been a joke.

But the crisis never materialized. The Supreme Court itself managed to avert it with its decision in West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, which effectively upheld something Roosevelt had long sought: legislation advancing his vision of economic progress. In this case, it was Washington state’s minimum-wage law. The bill to pack the court died a natural death shortly after.

None of this should be news to Cruz—a Harvard Law graduate and himself former law clerk to a Supreme Court chief justice. Which makes it all the more curious that he’d call Obama’s imminent action on immigration a “constitutional crisis.”

It is nowhere near that.

For one, because executive action on immigration has nothing to do with the separation of powers. Obama is not making new law: he’s not promising green cards or otherwise offering federal benefits to undocumented immigrants. He’s merely expected to exercise his broad discretion to suspend deportations for the sake of keeping families together and giving peace of mind to people who pose no threat to public safety.

All of this is perfectly within the president’s powers. Family unity, it turns out, has been a cornerstone of executive action before, and no constitutional crises ever came of it.

In 1986, President Ronald Reagan signed into law the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), which provided a path to legalization for up to 3 million undocumented immigrants who had resided “continuously” in the country for a fixed period. The law, however, left out of the picture spouses and children who did not meet the law’s criteria.

There was huge political fallout from the exclusion—it threatened to disrupt families, which cut to the heart of Reagan’s stance on family values and unity. Congress tried to fix the problem, to no avail.

So the executive responded. Alan Nelson, Reagan’s immigration commissioner at the time, announced he would exercise the attorney general’s discretion to make sure children of parents who benefitted from IRCA were granted a deferral of deportation—the functional equivalent of Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program from June 2012.

But the executive fix didn’t go far enough because it still left spouses and some children with one legalized and one undocumented parent unprotected from deportation. In July 1989, the Senate attempted to help these two groups by expanding IRCA to include them, but the House did not act.

Enter George H.W. Bush.

In what became known as the “Family Fairness” program, Bush boldly took up the failed Senate bill and implemented its main provisions via executive action. Gene McNary, the new immigration commissioner, predicted that up to 1.5 million family members would be spared from deportation under the new policy.

None of this, of course, caused a constitutional crisis.

If anything, executive action prompted Congress to step up to the plate and pass legislation that would provide even more help for families. It took Bush Sr. “going big” on immigration for the House to follow suit, leading to the passage of the Immigration Act of 1990. When Bush signed the law, he recognized its impetus was “family as the essential unity of society” and the country’s “historic commitment to family reunification.”

Families won the day. And like Reagan and Bush before him, there is a strong incentive for Obama to act on behalf of families when he moves unilaterally on immigration.

If the edifice of government didn’t collapse with prior executive action, it won’t collapse now.

Immigration, Latinos and the Law

Analysis: Executive action on immigration is perfectly legal

A write-up I did for Fusion on executive action on immigration.


Following a resounding victory for Republicans during Tuesday’s midterm elections, President Obama announced he will forge ahead with his plan to act unilaterally on immigration.

As promised, his executive action will come “before the end of the year.” What he won’t do, he said, is “just wait.”

But House Speaker John Boehner, repeating a line from before the election, said Obama would “poison the well” by acting without the approval of Congress. Sen. Ted Cruz, for his part, warned of a “constitutional crisis” if Obama acts alone.

But how real is such a crisis?

If Congress’ record of seeking to impeach or sue Obama is any indication, the crisis is simply nonexistent.

The president has taken executive action before. In June 2012, the Obama administration created a deportation relief program for young people called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). No viable legal challenges ever came from that move.

One quasi-challenge…

View original post 352 more words

Immigration, New York

City to stop honoring immigration detainers

By a wide margin, New York City lawmakers approved legislation barring the New York City Police Department and the Department of Corrections from honoring federal immigration detainers in most circumstances.

The bills — which replicate similar measures in Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, Newark, and San Diego — were introduced in response to congressional gridlock over comprehensive overhaul of the country’s immigration system.

“If obstructionists in Congress insist on delaying any federal action on fair and just immigration reform, it falls to municipal governments to pick up the slack,” said City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito, the lead sponsor of the bills.

Costa Costantinides, a city councilman representing Astoria and co-sponsor of the bills, said current immigration policies “lead to families being broken up.”

The Department of Homeland Security relies on detainers to hold immigrants who come in contact with criminal justice agencies, which then turn them over to federal agents for screening and possible deportation.

Under the new measures, city officials may only comply with the detainers — which instruct local governments to hold persons suspected of violating immigration laws for up to 48 hours — if accompanied by a judge-approved warrant and the person has been convicted for a “violent or serious crime.” The legislation also carves an exception for potential terror suspects.

Mayor Bill de Blasio has said he supports the bills and is expected to sign them into law soon.

In a statement, local Immigration and Customs Enforcement authorities said detainers are only meant to keep “dangerous criminals” out of communities.

“ICE will continue to work cooperatively with law enforcement partners throughout New York as the agency seeks to enforce its priorities through the identification and removal of convicted criminals and other public safety threats,” said ICE spokesperson Luis Martinez in the statement.

One of the bills also eliminates an ICE outpost at Rikers Island — a move councilmember Paul Vallone, who voted against the bills, said “sends a dangerous message.”

City Council Minority Leader Vincent Ignizio, another opponent, worried that “breaking ranks with our federal partners in law enforcement” is not the solution.

More than 900,000 people in New York City were subject to ICE-approved detainers between 2008 and Aug. 31, 2014, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Since Mayor de Blasio took office and Mark-Viverito the helm of the City Council in January, the city has backed measures to make it more immigrant-friendly, like a recently approved municipal-ID program that’s expected to be rolled out in January 2015.

The anti-detainer legislation arrives on the heels of a New York ruling — the first of its kind in the state — that declared illegal for the Department of Correction to hold an immigrant on a federal detainer where there isn’t probable cause or another authority to retain custody.

In that case, Mario Mendoza, 32, was arrested for violating a restraining order. While Mendoza awaited resolution of the case, immigration authorities, believing he was a candidate for deportation, issued a detainer. On Oct. 14, the day Mendoza’s charges were resolved, the Department of Corrections refused to release him, arguing the detainer required them to keep him in custody.

His attorney objected and intervened to have Mendoza released. The judge ruled in Mendoza’s favor and said that his continued detention violated the federal and state constitutions, and ordered his immediate release.

Other courts nationwide have reached similar results, and legal challenges continue in several jurisdictions.

In March, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit sided with a Puerto Rican man who was swept up in a drug raid and held on a detainer by immigration authorities for days. The court ruled that immigration detainers cannot be used to require local and state governments to hold persons suspected of being illegally in the country.

Relying on the Third Circuit’s decision, an Oregon federal court imposed liability on a county government for violating a woman’s Fourth Amendment rights due to an improperly honored detainer. And in late September, an Illinois federal court certified a class action against the Department of Homeland Security for the way it operates its immigration detainer program; that lawsuit is ongoing.

Kamala Harris, the California attorney general, responded to the Oregon ruling by issuing a bulletin to state and local law enforcement warning them of the “legal risk” of mishandling immigration detainers.

As a result of these legal challenges and growth of immigration populations, a number of municipalities are voluntarily ending their cooperation with immigration authorities, fearing lawsuits and potential liability.