Texas v. United States
Decision Date | 16 February 2015 |
Docket Number | Civil No. B–14–254. |
Citation | 86 F.Supp.3d 591 |
Parties | State of TEXAS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Texas |
Andrew Stephen Oldham, Adam Nicholas Bitter, Angela V. Colmenero, Arthur D'Andrea, John Campbell Barker, Scott A. Keller, Texas Attorney General's Office, Austin, TX, Peter Margulies, Roger Williams University School of Law, Bristol, RI, Joseph C. Chapelle, Peter J. Rusthoven, Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Indianapolis, IN, for Plaintiffs.
Kathleen R. Hartnett, Kyle Renee Freeny, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC, Daniel David Hu, Office of the U.S. Attorney's Office, Houston, TX, for Defendants.
This is a case in which twenty-six states or their representatives are seeking injunctive relief against the United States and several officials of the Department of Homeland Security to prevent them from implementing a program entitled “Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents.”1 This program is designed to provide legal presence to over four million individuals who are currently in the country illegally, and would enable these individuals to obtain a variety of both state and federal benefits.
The genesis of the problems presented by illegal immigration in this matter was described by the United States Supreme Court decades ago:
Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 218–19 & n. 17, 102 S.Ct. 2382, 72 L.Ed.2d 786 (1982). Thus, even in 1982, the Supreme Court noted in Plyler that the United States' problems with illegal immigration had existed for decades. Obviously, these issues are still far from a final resolution.
Since 1982, the population of illegal aliens in this country has more than tripled, but today's situation is clearly exacerbated by the specter of terrorism and the increased need for security.2 Nevertheless, the Executive Branch's position is the same as it was then. It is still voicing concerns regarding its inability to enforce all immigration laws due to a lack of resources. While Congress has not been idle, having passed a number of ever-increasing appropriation bills and various acts that affect immigration over the last four decades (especially in the wake of the terrorist attacks in 2001), it has not passed nor funded a long term, comprehensive system that resolves this country's issues regarding border security and immigration. To be sure, Congress' and the Executive Branch's focus on matters directly affecting national security is understandable. This overriding focus, however, does not necessarily comport with the interests of the states. While the States are obviously concerned about national security, they are also concerned about their own resources being drained by the constant influx of illegal immigrants into their respective territories, and that this continual flow of illegal immigration has led and will lead to serious domestic security issues directly affecting their citizenry. This influx, for example, is causing the States to experience severe law enforcement problems.3 Regardless of the reasons behind the actions or inaction of the Executive and Legislative Branches of the federal government, the result is that many states ultimately bear the brunt of illegal immigration.
This case examines complex issues relating to immigration which necessarily involve questions of federalism, separation of powers, and the ability and advisability, if any, of the Judiciary to hear and resolve such a dispute.
Chief Justice Roberts wrote in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius:
––– U.S. ––––, 132 S.Ct. 2566, 2577, 183 L.Ed.2d 450 (2012) ).
Although this Court is not faced with either a Congressional Act or an Executive Order, the sentiment expressed by these Chief Justices is nonetheless applicable. The ultimate question before the Court is: Do the laws of the United States, including the Constitution, give the Secretary of Homeland Security the power to take the action at issue in this case? Nevertheless, before the Court begins to address the issues raised in this injunctive action, it finds that the issues can best be framed by emphasizing what is not involved in this case.
First, this case does not involve the wisdom, or the lack thereof, underlying the decision by Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) Secretary Jeh Johnson to award legal presence status to over four million illegal aliens through the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (“DAPA,” also referred to interchangeably as the “DHS Directive” and the “DAPA Memorandum”) program. Although the Court will necessarily be forced to address many factors surrounding this decision and review the relationship between the Legislative and Executive Branches as it pertains to the DHS Secretary's discretion to act in this area, the actual merits of this program are not at issue.
Second, with three minor exceptions, this case does not involve the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”) program. In 2012, DACA was implemented by then DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano. The program permits teenagers and young adults, who were born outside the United States, but raised in this country, to apply for deferred action status and employment authorizations. The Complaint in this matter does not include the actions taken by Secretary Napolitano, which have to date formalized the status of approximately 700,000 teenagers and young adults. Therefore, those actions are not before the Court and will not be addressed by this opinion. Having said that, DACA will necessarily be discussed in this opinion as it is relevant to many legal issues in the present case. For example, the States maintain that the DAPA applications will undergo a process identical to that used for DACA applications and, therefore, DACA's policies and procedures will be instructive for the Court as to DAPA's implementation.
Third, several of the briefs have expressed a general public perception that the President has issued an executive order implementing a blanket amnesty program, and that it is this amnesty program that is before the Court in this suit. Although what constitutes an amnesty program is obviously a matter of opinion, these opinions do not impact the Court's decision. Amnesty or not, the issues before the Court do not require the Court to consider the public popularity, public acceptance, public acquiescence, or public disdain for the DAPA program. As Chief Justice Roberts alluded to above, public opinions and perceptions about the country's policies have no place in the resolution of a judicial matter.
Finally, both sides agree that the President in his official capacity has not directly instituted any program at issue in this case. Regardless of the fact that the Executive Branch has made public statements to the contrary, there are no executive orders or other presidential proclamations or communique that exist regarding DAPA. The DAPA Memorandum issued by Secretary Johnson is the focus in this suit.
That being said, the Court is presented with the following principle...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Shata
...adopting and rescinding policies regarding deferred action on deportation. See Texas v. United States, No. CIV. B–14–254, 86 F.Supp.3d 591, 612 & n. 12, 2015 WL 648579, at *7 & n. 12 (S.D.Tex. Feb. 16, 2015). On June 15, 2012, the United States Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) adopte......
-
In re Border Infrastructure Envtl. Litig., Case No.: 17cv1215–GPC(WVG)
...Permanent Residents ("DAPA") violated the Take Care Clause, an issue not addressed by the district court.28 Texas v. United States, 86 F.Supp.3d 591, 607 (S.D. Tex. 2015). Therefore, the Supreme Court's decision to sua sponte address the Take Care clause in relation to an act of the Secreta......
-
Casa De Md. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec.
...legal challenge when Texas and twenty-five other states sued to enjoin implementation of the program. See generally Texas v. United States , 86 F.Supp.3d 591 (S.D. Tex. 2015). In that case, DAPA was struck down by the district court, see id. , and a divided Fifth Circuit panel affirmed the ......
-
Texas v. United States
...sued to enjoin the implementation of DAPA and Expanded DACA, which this Court preliminarily enjoined in 2015. Texas v. United States , 86 F. Supp. 3d 591 (S.D. Tex. 2015). That injunction was affirmed by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, Texas v. United States , 809 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 201......
-
Ten Major Issues Facing Higher Education Institutions In 2023
...6 See Texas v. United States, No. 18-cv-00068 (S.D. Tex., filed May 1, 2018). 7 See Texas v. United States, 86 F. Supp. 3d 591, 604 (S.D. Tex. 8 Texas v. United States, 549 F. Supp. 3d 572, 624 (S.D. Tex. 2021); Texas v. United States, 50 F.4th 498, 528 (5th Cir. 2022). 9 See Deferred Actio......
-
Abusing the Judicial Power: a Geographic Approach to Address Nationwide Injunctions and State Standing
...may hold unlawful and set aside agency action).48. Texas, 809 F.3d at 149.49. Id.50. Id. at 149-50 (citing Texas v. United States, 86 F. Supp. 3d 591, 636-43 (S.D. Tex. 2015)).51. Id. at 176.52. Id.53. Id.54. Id. (citing U.S. Dep't of Labor v. Kast Metals Corp., 744 F.2d 1145, 1153 (5th Cir......
-
Unpacking Third-Party Standing.
..."leav[ing] the transferee judge as a virtually unchecked force in the pretrial phase"). (389.) See, e.g., Texas v. United States, 86 F. Supp. 3d 591, 677-78 (S.D. Tex.) (enjoining Obama Administration immigration policy), aff'd, 809 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2015), aff'd by an equally divided cour......
-
Remedies and Respect: Rethinking the Role of Federal Judicial Relief
...at 1071; see also Bray, supra note 9, at 419 (using a similar definition for “national injunctions”). 167. See Texas v. United States, 86 F. Supp. 3d 591, 604 (S.D. Tex.), aff’d, 809 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2015), aff’d by an equally divided court, 136 S. Ct. 2271 (2016) (per curiam). 168. See,......
-
ADMINISTRATIVE SABOTAGE.
...administrative record... largely justified such extra-record discovery as occurred"). (112.) Mat 2573. (113.) Texas v. United States, 86 F. Supp. 3d 591,614 (S.D. Tex.), affd, 809 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2015), affd by an equally divided court, 136 S. Ct. 2271 (114.) Complaint for Declaratory &a......