United States v. Texas | |
---|---|
Argued April 18, 2016 Decided June 23, 2016 | |
Full case name | United States of America, et al., Petitioners v. State of Texas, et al. |
Docket no. | 15-674 |
Citations | 579 U.S. ___ ( more ) 136 S. Ct. 2271; 195 L. Ed. 2d 638 |
Case history | |
Prior | Issuing preliminary injunction, 86 F. Supp. 3d 591 (S.D. Tex. 2015); stay denied, 787 F.3d 733 (5th Cir. 2015); preliminary injunction affirmed, 809 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2015); cert. granted, 136 S. Ct. 906 (2016). |
Holding | |
The judgment was affirmed by an equally divided court. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinion | |
Per curiam | |
Laws applied | |
Take Care Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Administrative Procedure Act, United States immigration legislation from 1952, 1965, 1986, 1990, 1996, etc. |
United States v. Texas, 579 U.S. ___ (2016), is a United States Supreme Court case regarding the constitutionality of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) program.
In a one-line per curiam decision, an equally divided Court affirmed the lower-court injunction blocking the President Barack Obama's program. The case was decided by an eight-member bench due to the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.
On June 27, 2013, the U.S. Senate's Gang of Eight successfully passed its comprehensive immigration reform bill in the Senate. [1] [2] However, the Republican-controlled House did not initially act on the Senate's bill. [3] [4] When pressed during an interview on Univision in March 2014, to take unilateral executive action to limit deportations, President Barack Obama replied "until Congress passes a new law, then I am constrained in terms of what I am able to do". [5]
On June 9, 2014, House Whip Kevin McCarthy announced that House Republicans had enough votes to pass the bill. [1] [6] However, the next day House Majority Leader Eric Cantor lost his primary election. So on June 30, Speaker John Boehner announced that he would not bring the bill to a vote. [1] That same day, President Obama delivered remarks in the White House Rose Garden promising to "fix as much of our immigration system as I can on my own, without Congress". [1] [7]
Over the next four months, the Obama Administration went through sixty iterations of different possible executive actions. [8] Finally, on November 20, 2014, President Obama delivered a primetime televised address to the nation announcing DAPA. [9] [10] The Office of Legal Counsel advised that the program was constitutional, finding it was similar to President George H. W. Bush's 1990 "Family Fairness" program. [11] Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson then released two memorandums directing the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Bureau to make unauthorized immigrants who lacked criminal histories the lowest priority for removal, [12] and to grant deferred action to illegal immigrants who are the parents of a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. [13]
The President's program, when combined with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, would have delayed the deportation of slightly less than half of the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States. [14] The New York Times reported that "more than 10 million people live in households with at least one potentially DAPA-eligible adult" and that "two-thirds of these adults have lived in the United States for at least 10 years". [14] Over half the unauthorized immigrants eligible for the President's delayed deportation live in California, Texas, and New York. [14]
Two weeks later, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott sued in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. [1] The suit was joined by twenty-five other states, with 2.2 million of the 3.6 million unauthorized immigrants eligible for DAPA residing in states that did not join the lawsuit. [14]
On February 16, 2015, United States District Judge Andrew S. Hanen in Brownsville, Texas, issued a preliminary injunction against an executive action taken by President Barack Obama that would have given illegal immigrants legal status and protection and let them apply for work permits.[ why? ] [15] [16] [17] The U.S. government on February 23, 2015, asked the Court to lift the injunction while it appealed his ruling to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans; [18] [19] it also proposed that the Court could issue a partial stay that would allow every state except for Texas to start implementing DAPA. [19]
In an opinion and order published on April 7, 2015, Hanen denied the Government's request to stay the preliminary injunction. [20] : 15 He affirmed the earlier ruling that the plaintiff states had standing; [20] : 3–7 cited statements made by President Obama regarding the applicability of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) that DHS employees would "suffer consequences" if they failed to follow the DHS Directive;[ further explanation needed ] [20] : 7–11 denied the DOJ request to apply for the injunction only to Texas; [20] : 11–12 and addressed[ vague ] the issue of irreparable harm with regard to both the federal government and to the states. [20] : 13–14
On the same day, the Court issued a separate order criticizing the federal government for granting three-year periods of deferred action to 108,081 individuals between the announcement of DAPA and the preliminary injunction, [21] : 3 [20] : 2 despite earlier statements made to the court by the Department of Justice that no action would be taken on these applications. [21] : 2 The Court reserved the right to impose sanctions against the federal government's counsel for misrepresenting facts. [21] : 9
The Obama Administration appealed the order for a preliminary injunction and asked the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans to stay the district court's injunction pending appeal. [22] On May 26, 2015, the administration's motion for a stay was denied by a divided three-member motions panel, over a dissent by Judge Stephen A. Higginson, meaning that the government could not implement DAPA until the Fifth Circuit ruled on the appeal of the injunction order itself. [23] [24] [25] Arguments were heard on an expedited basis on July 10, 2015. On November 9, 2015, a three-member panel of the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's preliminary injunction, over one dissent. [26] [27]
The divided circuit court affirmed the preliminary injunction and ordered the case back to the district court for trial. [28] Judge Jerry Edwin Smith, joined by Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod agreed with the district court that Texas has standing because of the cost of issuing driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants and that President Obama's order violated the rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. [28] The majority made a new finding that the Immigration and Nationality Act "flatly does not permit" deferred action. [29] Judge Carolyn Dineen King dissented, arguing that prosecutorial discretion makes the case non-justiciable, and that there had been "no justification" for the circuit court's delay in the ruling. [29]
On November 10, 2015, the Justice Department announced it would ask the Supreme Court to reverse. [30] Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton attempted to prolong consideration of the case until the next October term but the Supreme Court only granted him an eight-day extension to file his opposition brief. [31] The Justice Department further hastened the case by waiving its right to file a reply brief. [32] On January 19, 2016, the Supreme Court agreed to review the case. [33] The Court took the unusual step of asking for a briefing on the new constitutional question as to whether or not DAPA violates the Take Care Clause. [34]
Due to the subsequent death of Justice Antonin Scalia, the case was decided by eight justices. On April 18, 2016, the Court heard ninety minutes of oral arguments from Donald B. Verrilli Jr., the Solicitor General of the United States, an attorney for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund as an intervenor in support of the Government, Texas Solicitor General Scott Keller for the several states, and a Bancroft PLLC attorney representing the United States House of Representatives as a friend of Texas. [35] Commentators complained that the arguments were "one of the most flagrant examples in recent memory of a naked political dispute masquerading as a legal one". [36]
On June 23, 2016, the Supreme Court announced it had deadlocked 4–4 in a decision that read, in its entirety, "The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court." [37] [38] The ruling set no precedent and simply left in place the lower court's preliminary injunction blocking the program. [38] The case may reach the Supreme Court again after Judge Hanen has held a trial. [38]
President Obama immediately held a press conference criticizing the decision, where he blamed "spasms of politics around immigration and fear-mongering" as well as Senate Republicans for refusing to consider his nominee for the Supreme Court, Merrick Garland. [38] [39] Former acting Solicitor General Walter Dellinger observed "seldom have the hopes of so many been crushed by so few words". [38] Texas Attorney General Paxton praised the result because "This is a major setback to President Obama's attempts to expand executive power, and a victory for those who believe in the separation of powers and the rule of law." [38]
While the case was awaiting a decision from the United States Supreme Court, trial court judge Hanen issued a temporary hold on three-year renewals of work authorization for some illegal immigrants. [40] The federal government gave three-year renewals of work authorization for 2,500 young, illegal immigrants, despite Judge Hanen's order. [40] The federal government later reversed the three-year extensions for those 2,500 people, and attorneys for the Department of Justice said the renewals of work authorizations were made in error. [40] Judge Hanen accused the attorneys of purposely misleading his court, he barred them from appearing in his courtroom, he demanded ethics classes for the attorneys, and he ordered other sanctions for those who argued the case in his courtroom. [41] Judge Hanen also ordered Attorney General Loretta Lynch to appoint someone within the department to ensure compliance with his order. [41]
On November 18, 2016, attorneys for both parties filed a joint motion to stay proceeding until one month after President Donald Trump's inauguration. [42] On June 15, 2017, new Homeland Security Secretary John F. Kelly signed a memo rescinding DAPA, ending the matter. [43] DHS's announcement clarified that the new memo does not affect Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, leading the White House to announce it had not decided if it will or will not keep that other policy. [44] However, on September 5, 2017, the Trump Administration announced that they planned to end DACA if Congress was unable to pass it into law within six months. [45]
Reforming the immigration policy of the United States is a subject of political discourse and contention. Immigration has played an essential part in American history, as except for the Native Americans, everyone in the United States is descended from people who migrated to the United States. Some claim that the United States maintains the world's most liberal immigration policy.
Nicholas George Garaufis is a senior United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
Jerry Edwin Smith is an American attorney and jurist serving as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Andrew Scott Hanen is an American attorney and jurist serving as a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292 (1993), was a Supreme Court of the United States case that addressed the detention and release of unaccompanied minors.
Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case involving Arizona's SB 1070, a state law intended to increase the powers of local law enforcement that wished to enforce federal immigration laws. The issue is whether the law usurps the federal government's authority to regulate immigration laws and enforcement. The Court ruled that sections 3, 5(C), and 6 of S. B. 1070 were preempted by federal law but left other parts of the law intact, including a provision that allowed law enforcement to investigate a person's immigration status.
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) is a United States immigration policy. It allows some individuals who, on June 15, 2012, were physically present in the United States with no lawful immigration status after having entered the country as children at least five years earlier, to receive a renewable two-year period of deferred action from deportation and to be eligible for an employment authorization document.
Deportation and removal from the United States occurs when the U.S. government orders a person to leave the country. In fiscal year 2014, Immigration and Customs Enforcement conducted 315,943 removals. Criteria for deportations are set out in 8 U.S.C. § 1227.
Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA), sometimes called Deferred Action for Parental Accountability, was a planned United States immigration policy to grant deferred action status to certain undocumented immigrants who have lived in the United States since 2010 and have children who are either American citizens or lawful permanent residents. It was prevented from going into effect. Deferred action would not be legal status but would come with a three-year renewable work permit and exemption from deportation. DAPA was a presidential executive action, not a law passed by Congress.
Stephen Yale-Loehr, is an American law professor and immigration law attorney. Yale-Loehr earned his undergraduate and law degrees from Cornell University in 1977 and 1981, respectively. He was editor-in-chief of the Cornell International Law Journal during his time at the law school. Upon graduating he clerked for Judge Howard G. Munson of the U.S. District Court, Northern District of New York, nominated by President Gerald Ford. Yale-Loehr has been a member of the Cornell Law faculty since 1991.
Immigration policy, including illegal immigration to the United States, was a signature issue of former U.S. president Donald Trump's presidential campaign, and his proposed reforms and remarks about this issue generated much publicity. Trump has repeatedly said that illegal immigrants are criminals.
Executive Order 13769 was signed by U.S. President Donald Trump on January 27, 2017, and quickly became the subject of legal challenges in the federal courts of the United States. The order sought to restrict travel from seven Muslim majority countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. The plaintiffs challenging the order argued that it contravened the United States Constitution, federal statutes, or both. On March 16, 2017, Executive Order 13769 was superseded by Executive Order 13780, which took legal objections into account and removed Iraq from affected countries. Then on September 24, 2017, Executive Order 13780 was superseded by Presidential Proclamation 9645 which is aimed at more permanently establishing travel restrictions on those countries except Sudan, while adding North Korea and Venezuela which had not previously been included.
Executive Order 13780, titled Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, was an executive order signed by United States President Donald Trump on March 6, 2017. It placed a 90-day restriction on entry to the U.S. by nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, and barred entry for all refugees who did not possess either a visa or valid travel documents for 120 days. This executive order—sometimes called "Travel Ban 2.0"—revoked and replaced Executive Order 13769 issued on January 27, 2017.
International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, 883 F. 3d 233, was a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, sitting en banc, upholding an injunction against enforcement of Proclamation No. 9645, titled "Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats", a presidential proclamation signed by President Donald Trump on September 24, 2017. The proclamation indefinitely suspends the entry into the U.S. of some or all immigrant and non-immigrant travelers from eight countries. It is a successor to Executive Order 13769, entitled "Protection of the Nation from Terrorist Entry into the United States," which were also enjoined by the District Court of Maryland and the Fourth Circuit in a case decided in 2017 by the same name of International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, 857 F.3d 554.
Family Fairness was a program run by the Immigration and Naturalization Services in the United States from late 1987 to late 1990. The initial version was introduced in late 1987 by then INS Commissioner Alan C. Nelson, working under then Attorney General Edwin Meese and then President Ronald Reagan. An expansion of the program was introduced in early 1990 by INS Commissioner Gene McNary working under then Attorney General Dick Thornburgh and then United States President George H. W. Bush. The program was created through executive action, in order to meet the problem of "split-eligibility" families created by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, pending legislation that would address the issue. The Immigration Act of 1990 replaced it with a legislatively sanctioned Family Unity Program, that continues to be in force today.
Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, 591 U.S. 1 (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held by a 5–4 vote that a 2017 U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) order to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) immigration program was "arbitrary and capricious" under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and reversed the order.
Wolf v. Vidal, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a case that was filed to challenge the Trump Administration's rescission of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). Plaintiffs in the case are DACA recipients who argue that the rescission decision is unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment. On February 13, 2018, Judge Garaufis in the Eastern District of New York addressed the question of whether the government offered a legally adequate reason for ending the DACA program. The court found that Defendants did not provide a legally adequate reason for ending the DACA program and that the decision to end DACA was arbitrary and capricious. Defendants have appealed the decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
Federal policy oversees and regulates immigration to the United States and citizenship of the United States. The United States Congress has authority over immigration policy in the United States, and it delegates enforcement to the Department of Homeland Security. Historically, the United States went through a period of loose immigration policy in the early-19th century followed by a period of strict immigration policy in the late-19th and early-20th centuries. Policy areas related to the immigration process include visa policy, asylum policy, and naturalization policy. Policy areas related to illegal immigration include deferral policy and removal policy.
In United States law, a nationwide injunction is injunctive relief in which a court binds the federal government even in its relations with nonparties. In their prototypical form, nationwide injunctions are used to restrict the federal government from enforcing a statute or regulation.
Gene P. Hamilton is an American lawyer and policymaker who served within the U.S. Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security during the presidency of Donald J. Trump. In these positions, he played key roles in ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, creating the Trump administration's "zero tolerance" family separation policy, and in revoking the Temporary Protected Status of immigrants from Sudan and South Sudan.
In a blistering order, Judge Andrew S. Hanen of Federal District Court in Brownsville accused the Justice Department lawyers of lying to him during arguments in the case, and he barred them from appearing in his courtroom.
The problem, according to Judge Hanen, is the Justice Department assured him that the federal government would not begin implementing the program – which the judge apparently took to mean any part of it – before February 2015, giving him time to weigh the legal issues. He also said the Justice Department misled him about how many three-year extensions were granted.