New Front Opens In Ongoing Legal Battle Over Obama’s Immigration Actions

UNITED STATES - APRIL 18: Immigration reform supporters rally outside of the Supreme Court as oral arguments are heard on President Obama's executive actions which would help defer deportation for undocumented people... UNITED STATES - APRIL 18: Immigration reform supporters rally outside of the Supreme Court as oral arguments are heard on President Obama's executive actions which would help defer deportation for undocumented people, April 18, 2016. (Photo By Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call) (CQ Roll Call via AP Images) MORE LESS
Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

In a not unexpected move, immigrant advocates filed a lawsuit Thursday taking on a federal court ruling that blocked President Obama’s 2014 executive actions providing deportation relief to certain undocumented immigrants.

The lawsuit argues that the federal judge who blocked the implementation of the programs — Andrew Hanen, a conservative in southern Texas — did not have the authority to impose a nationwide injunction. Because the Supreme Court was evenly divided when Hanen’s order was appealed to the eight justices, the new lawsuit could open the door for Obama’s actions to go back into effect for at least some undocumented immigrants living in other parts of the country.

The legal challenge was brought by Batalla Vidal, a 25-year-old undocumented man living in New York who was brought to the states from Mexico when he was seven. Vidal was eligible for the 2012 executive action that granted deportation relief to some immigrants brought to the U.S. illegally as children, and applied for the program, known as DACA, in November 2014. Not long after, the Obama administration announced it was expanding the DACA program so it covered recipients for three years instead of two. Vidal’s three-year authorization, however, was revoked because of Hanen’s injunction on the expanded program. Vidal — who is seeking a medical assistant’s degree — is now suing immigration officials to restore his three-year authorization.

“[The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] erred in revoking Mr. Batalla Vidal’s employment authorization based on an overly broad injunction entered by a court in Texas that lacked jurisdiction to reach New York residents,” the lawsuit said.

Vidal is being represented by attorneys at the National Immigration Law Center, as well as the Jerome N. Frank Legal Services Organization at Yale Law School and the group Make The Road New York.

The move is the latest legal volley in what has been years of litigation around the Obama administration’s attempts, in the face of united congressional Republican opposition, to deal with the 11 million immigrants living in the U.S. illegally. Texas with 25 other states brought a lawsuit against Obama’s 2014 action, which prompted Hanen’s injunction. Hanen’s ruling was upheld by the very conservative 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The Department of Justice appealed the case to the Supreme Court, which last spring split 4-4 on ideological lines on the injunction’s legality. A tie vote defers back to the appeals court’s decision but has no national precedent, which means courts in other circuits are not bound by it. Vidal’s lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court of Eastern New York, which lies in the Second Circuit.

Vidal is arguing that Hanen’s injunction should not apply to him because of where he lives. But if Vidal is successful, his case has the potential to create a circuit split which would give the Supreme Court — perhaps after a ninth justice is eventually confirmed to its bench — another opportunity to revisit Hanen’s order.

Read the lawsuit below:

Latest DC
5
Show Comments

Notable Replies

  1. A tie vote defers back to the appeals court’s decision but has no national precedent, which means courts in other circuits are not bound by it. Vidal’s lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court of Eastern New York, which lies in the Second Circuit.

    Now that is a thing of beauty. I hope this man is successful not only for himself but for the millions of people that came here as children as immigrants. This horrid decision by the Texass judge and a split decision by a Second and Seventh Circuit Court decision could easily justify another case to reach the Supreme Court. The 5th Circuit Court that agreed with the Texas judge that overturned DACA for the entire country was an unfortunate overreach of authority, without consideration of the facts by a full compliment of judges on our Supreme Court. Ya hear that, McTurtle. You continue to fuck up what should be a functioning judiciary with your petty partisan bullshit. Meanwhile, people’s lives are being upended by your stubborn, arrogant, and irresponsible actions.

    It’s now been 194 days since Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died, and 157 days since President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to replace Scalia.

    From Freep:

    On July 19, Garland officially broke the record of Louis Brandeis, who endured a wait of 125 days between nomination and confirmation to the Court.

    Fucking Obstructionist Republican Senatorial Idiots who continue to ignore the Constitution – Do the damn job you were elected to do…Your time is coming. Soon we’ll all be saying, “Your Republican majority no longer exists. So, take a fucking hike.”

  2. Keep hammering away at these right-wing judicial hacks shoved into the courts by gerrymandering assholes.

  3. Good! Lilberals win because they make better legal arguments. Conservatives win because they appoint worse judges.

  4. Sounds like a winning argument to me. Wouldn’t a states rights person agree?

    The SC tied so there’s no national standing or precedent in NY.
    This dude’s/hombre’s original ruling should be reinstated along with at least 25 other states hombres y damas.

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

Participants

Avatar for system1 Avatar for srfromgr Avatar for leftflank Avatar for commiedearest Avatar for sniffit

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Deputy Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: