Log In

Reset Password
News Education Local News Nation & World New Mexico

Hearing begins in immigration case

U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen said Thursday he will probably not rule on a case brought by 25 states seeking to stop President Barack Obama from easing immigration policies before Jan. 30. Protesters were outside the federal courthouse in Brownsville, Texas, where the case is being heard.

BROWNSVILLE, Texas – A federal judge in South Texas on Thursday pushed an attorney representing the federal government to explain the legal authority behind President Barack Obama’s executive action on immigration, which a coalition of 25 states has sued to try to stop.

U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen heard arguments during a hearing on a request by the coalition for a preliminary injunction, which would put Obama’s action on hold until the lawsuit makes its way through the courts. The first of Obama’s orders is set to start accepting applications Feb. 18.

Hanen said he would not issue a ruling on the injunction request before Jan. 30.

He gave no indication on how he would rule.

The coalition, led by Texas and made up of mostly conservative states in the South and Midwest, argue that Obama has violated the “Take Care Clause” of the U.S. Constitution, which they say limits the scope of presidential power.

Speaking on behalf of the states, Andrew Oldham, deputy solicitor general of Texas, told Hanen that Obama’s executive action will cause states irreparable harm because it would cost them billions of dollars in health care, education and law enforcement costs. Oldham also argued that the executive action would induce more people to come to the U.S. illegally and that those already in the country illegally would have no reason to leave.

Oldham said the issue was “whether the president can unilaterally suspend immigration laws, hand out millions of immigration documents and remove that operation from judicial review by calling it an executive action. If this president can do this, the next president can do the same thing with tax law, environmental law, workplace protection laws, with any laws.”

Hanen questioned the economic harm claim related to health care and education, as prior Supreme Court rulings already obligate states to provide such things to individuals in the country illegally.

In response to Hanen’s question about the government’s justification, Hartnett said it has long been a feature of immigration enforcement that there is discretion at every step of the process when dealing with illegal immigration deportations.

“The reason for this policy is to help focus Homeland Security on its priorities: stop border crossings, criminal aliens and national security threats. The policy is directing resources in a thoughtful way. It will take low-priority cases, put them aside and use our limited resources to focus on cases that matter the most to the safety of the nation,” she said.

Oldham said a 26th state, Tennessee, would like to join the lawsuit.

Reader Comments