Skip to main content

Sign up for our newsletter.

Quality journalism. Progressive values. Direct to your inbox.

Protesters gather to ask that Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi withdraw the state of Florida from the list of 25 states that joined a lawsuit against U.S. President Barack Obama's Executive Action on Immigration on January 22, 2015 in Miami, Florida. The lawsuit that Bondi supports aims to stop the Presidents recent executive action on immigration, halting the implementation of DAPA (Deferred Action for Parental Accountability) and stopping hte expansion of DACA, which could allow up to 5 million people to apply for work permits and live without the fear of deportation. (Photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

Federal Judge in Texas Places Injunction on Obama Immigration Plan

The ruling, say critics, put 'court far outside the legal mainstream and away from public opinion'

Jon Queally

Immigration rights groups are slamming the ruling by a federal judge in Texas who has ordered a preliminary injunction against a set of immigration policy changes put forth by the Obama administration in an executive order last year.

In a ruling handed down late Monday, Judge Andrew Hanen of the U.S. District Court in Brownsville, Texas said that the administration's attempt to expand protections against deportation for certain segments of the immigrant population would cause "dramatic and irreparable injuries" to the 26 states who joined together in a lawsuit against the president's action.

The White House vowed to appeal Hansen's decision, likely to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, as both the Justice Department and supporters of the president's measures said the legal arguments against are simply cover for political opposition to any kind of immigration reform.

"The district court's decision wrongly prevents these lawful, commonsense policies from taking effect and the Department of Justice has indicated that it will appeal that decision," a statement from the White House said.

According to the Associated Press:

The first of Obama's orders — to expand a program that protects young immigrants from deportation if they were brought to the U.S. illegally as children — was set to start taking effect Wednesday. The other major part of Obama's order, which extends deportation protections to parents of U.S. citizens and permanent residents who have been in the country for some years, was not expected to begin until May 19.

Joaquin Guerra, political director of Texas Organizing Project, called the ruling a "temporary setback."

"We will continue getting immigrants ready to apply for administrative relief," he said in a statement.

The coalition of states, led by Texas and made up of mostly conservative states in the South and Midwest, argues that Obama has violated the "Take Care Clause" of the U.S. Constitution, which they say limits the scope of presidential power. They also say the order will force increased investment in law enforcement, health care and education.

According to the complaint filed by the 26 states, "This lawsuit is not about immigration. It is about the rule of law, presidential power, and the structural limits of the U.S. Constitution."

However, in a statement made to Reuters, Melissa Crow, legal director of the American Immigration Council, said her group believes the decision in Texas is "more about politics than law."

"We firmly believe that these programs will be implemented," Crow added, "and whether it's now or several months from now, we have no question that the president was well within the bounds of his executive authority."

Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center, expressed disappointment, but also described the ruling as a short-term roadblock for the president's plan.

Judge Hansen's ruling, Hincapié said, puts the court "far outside the legal mainstream and away from public opinion, which supports the step President Obama took toward finally beginning to fix our dysfunctional immigration system." Her statement continued:

Questions about the legality of President Obama’s actions on immigration have already been addressed in other courts, and state claims like the ones upheld today have already been rejected. Today’s decision overlooked sound legal reasoning and precedent, and, if not reversed, threatens to keep millions of aspiring Americans from coming forward to apply for much-needed reprieves from deportation and work authorization.

Fortunately, this decision represents only a temporary setback. We urge the Department of Justice to act swiftly to ask the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse this court’s decision to block the immigration initiatives. Failure to do so will confuse potentially eligible immigrants and undermine the success of these initiatives.

Opponents’ declarations of victory today are premature. We are confident that the courts will ultimately side with the scores of legal experts, state leaders, city officials, and law enforcement leaders who say that these immigration initiatives are both in full compliance with law and deeply beneficial to our communities, society, and country. In the meantime, we will only strengthen our resolve to prepare for the moment when immigrant families can come forward and apply for the opportunity to contribute more fully to the country they have made their home.

This decision will undoubtedly raise concerns for immigrant communities anxiously awaiting the day they can come out of the shadows. They should continue preparing for implementation by gathering documents that serve as proof of their eligibility, saving money for application expenses, and staying informed. It won’t be long before eligible immigrants will be able to live without the fear of deportation while working lawfully and contributing to their families and communities. That will be a good day for our country.

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.

Right-Wing Extremist Boebert to Guide Policy on House GOP Leadership Team

"This is the Republican Party after a catastrophic midterm underperformance," said one Democratic strategist.

Julia Conley ·

Fonda's Fire Drill Fridays Returns to DC Streets Over Manchin Dirty Deal

"The time is now to vote out the politicians like Joe Manchin that are having the dirty deal perpetuated and who think that their pollution and their profits are more important than our lives," said White House adviser Jerome Foster II.

Brett Wilkins ·

House Committee to Investigate Alito Leak, Right-Wing Lobbying at Supreme Court

"It's clear that some of these justices are simply incapable of behaving ethically or putting the law before politics, and the court is unwilling or unable to police itself," said one court watchdog.

Julia Conley ·

Fetterman Taps Person Who Literally Wrote the Book on Killing Senate Filibuster as Chief of Staff

"It will be invaluable to have a veteran of the Senate and a veteran of state politics in these key positions as we serve the people of Pennsylvania," said the Senator-elect about two key hires for his new staff.

Jon Queally ·

Climate Activists Tell Macron to Stop Using Trade Rules to Thwart Clean Energy

"Governments should be empowered to fight climate change and support the clean energy transition without fear of being undermined by antiquated trade rules," said one advocate.

Kenny Stancil ·

Common Dreams Logo