Obama in Legal Trouble over Amnesty and Obamacare Executive Orders

Yesterday, a federal judge resisted the Obama administration's first courtroon effort toward a dismissal of the lawsuit brought by House Republicans over Obamacare. In the hearing, Judge Rosemary Collyer criticized administration arguments to dismiss the case. The Health and Human Services Department says the House doesn't have the required legal standing to challenge how the administration implements Obamacare. The unprecedented lawsuit challenges the Obama administration actions to fund Obamacare cost-sharing subsidies to insurers that help low-income enrollees without a congressional appropriation, and its delay of the employer mandate by one year. Judge Collyer said she has not decided how she will rule, but she was firm in challenging the administration position and the oral arguments of Justice Department attorney Joel McElvain, who started by describing the House's objections to the Obamacare rules as an "abstract dispute over the implementation" of federal law, and therefore the House has no standing. Collyer answered that argument by saying, "You don't really think that." She later added, "This is the problem I have with your brief -- it's just not direct, you have to address their arguments." Acknowledging that she was tougher on the administration lawyer, the judge nevertheless had sharp questions for the House GOP's attorney, George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley, who said that dismissing the lawsuit could limit the legislative branch's ability to combat future executive overreach : "That would mean that there's nothing we could do that would stop them," he said. Collyer later responded in jest and saying that she was not suggesting it : "What about impeachment, is that an option?" She did not say when she will rule on the administration request. House Speaker John Boehner announced his intention to sue President Obama in July 2014, but filing was postponed until November after two attorneys hired by the House dropped out, reportedly under pressure from other clients. Turley eventually took the case. The Obama administration says that the House has not been injured by the administrative actions in any specific way, that the Constitution's separation-of- powers doctrine bars the lawsuit, and that Congress has other ways of expressing its opposition to the actions - such as the power of the purse. But, it is clear that Judge Collyer was not overwhelmed by Obama administration arguments. ~~~~~ The filing of this lawsuit was followed by House threats to sue over other Obama executive actions on immigration, though no lawsuit has been filed yet. This is certainly related to the fact that a lawsuit was filed in a Texas federal court in February by 26 states seeking to overturn Obama's executive orders giving amnesty to 5 million illegal immigrants. A federal appeals court on Tuesday refused to lift an injunction put in place by US District Court Judge Andrew Hanen in the Texas federal court case. Judge Hanen's injunction stops President Obama’s signature immigration proposals from moving forward, calling into doubt whether the program will even begin before the President leaves office. In a split 2-to-1 decision, the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in New Orleans denied the Obama administration’s emergency request to lift the federal district court’s injunction on an initiative to defer the deportations of illegal immigrants and grant them work permits. Obama announced the program by executive orders in November. The President said the federal government does not have resources to remove all of the nation’s 11 million undocumented immigrants and must focus on hardened criminals and potential terrorists. But Texas and 25 other states sued the administration, called the move unconstitutional. Judge Hanen ruled in February that the expanded program should be put on hold until the case is resolved. The Obama administration asked for an immediate stay from the 5th Circuit last month, arguing that the states lacked the legal authority to sue the US government over policies relating to federal control of the nation’s borders. The 5th Circuit panel rejected that argument Tuesday. In the ruling, Judge Jerry Smith stated that Hanen’s injunction will remain in place because the administration is “unlikely to succeed on the merits of its appeal.” Judge Smith wrote that Texas had successfully established that it would incur a financial burden if it was required to issue driver’s licenses and other services to immigrants who qualified for deportation protection under Obama’s deferred-action program. Judge Smith's opinion was joined by Judge Jennifer Elrod. Smith added that the new program goes beyond the law enforcement concept of “prosecutorial discretion,” in which a government with limited resources sets priorities for enforcement. Rather, he wrote, the policy “is the affirmative act of conferring ‘lawful presence’ on a class of unlawfully present aliens. Though revocable, that new designation triggers eligibility for federal and state benefits that would not otherwise be available.” ~~~~~ The 5th Circuit appelate court’s ruling was a setback to Obama’s immigration agenda, which the President has made a major event in his second term. The Department of Homeland Security had planned to begin enrolling newly eligible immigrants this month. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said the ruling is : “a victory for those committed to preserving the rule of law in America....We will continue to fight the brazen lawlessness that has become a trademark of the Obama Administration.” After rejecting the stay request, the 5th Circuit must now hear arguments in July on the administration’s underlying appeal of Hanen’s injunction. The 5th Circuit is one of the most conservative appeals courts in the nation, and the administration faces an uphill battle. In the meantime, US District Judge Hanen must rule on the key question of whether Obama’s executive actions are constitutional. Hanen has not indicated when his ruling will be handed down, although he has expressed skepticism about the President’s immigration policies. Whatever the rulings, the legal fight is likely to contonue on appeal up to the US Supreme Court. ~~~~~ In an ill-conceived attack on the 5th Circuit ruling against the President, the White House issued a statement saying : “Today, two judges of the Fifth Circuit chose to misinterpret the facts and the law in denying the government’s request for a stay,” White House spokeswoman Brandi Hoffine defended Obama’s actions as “fully consistent with the law...squarely within the bounds of his authority.” Obama’s new deferred-action program benefitting up to 5 million undocumented immigrants follows on a 2012 initiative that deferred the deportations of more than 600,000 immigrants brought to the United States illegally as children. The 2012 executive order that granted most of them work permits is not affected by Hanen’s injunction or the 5th Circuit decision. The expanded program now being challenged would extend to the undocumented parents of US citizens and legal permanent residents, provided the parents have lived in the country for at least five years and have not committed felonies or repeated misdemeanors. ~~~~~ Most 2016 GOP presidential candidates have pledged to overturn Obama’s immigration actions, while leading Democratic candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton has strongly endorsed the President’s actions, saying she would issue even more executive orders as President, a campaign position obviously popular with Latino and Asian American groups. Erika Andiola, co-director of the Dream Action Coalition, an immigrant rights group, who said : “We knew since the beginning that this was going to be a tough battle....Republicans strategically chose this conservative judge [Hanen] whom they knew would delay implementation and try to intimidate our community. We, however, were the ones who pressured the President, knowing it is a constitutional move, and we continue to be confident that we will win at the end.” ~~~~~ Dear readers, in 2011 President Obama said : "I just suspend deportations through executive order, that’s just not the case, because there are laws on the books that Congress has passed..... Congress passes the law. The executive branch’s job is to enforce and implement those laws. And then the judiciary has to interpret the laws. There are enough laws on the books by Congress that are very clear in terms of how we have to enforce our immigration system that for me to simply through executive order ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.” Mr. Obama should have followed his own advice. Now it appears that the federal courts will explain the Constitution to him again in much more public and precedent-creating legal decisions.