Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons
“Lawfare” is the use of often-frivolous lawsuits to intimidate, silence and stymie opponents. The absurd suits of blue states against the president, in order to block his immigration orders are good examples.
Here’s yet another reason why Congress should strip the federal courts of jurisdiction over immigration—a power Congress does possess:
Lawfare by blue states and DC, fighting to keep DACA. A CNN article on the story includes what may be the most idiotic statement of the year:
“I filed suit against President Trump and his administration to protect DACA because Dreamers are just as American as first lady Melania Trump,” New Mexico Attorney General Hector Balderas said in a statement.
This guy is a lawyer? Melania Trump is a citizen, who entered the country legally; the DACA beneficiaries are here only by virtue of an unconstitutional memo from former (and present) community organizer, Barack Obama, who even admitted he lacked the authority to do that.
If we can believe CNN, the following states (and DC) are joining in this folly: New Mexico, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia and Washington.
Although the real strategy is the time-honored tool of the Left: “Let’s just do whatever we please,” supposedly, the grounds that may be used are that President Trump violated the Administrative Procedure Act, which lays out a lengthy process that requires ample notice and time for the public to comment on substantive federal rulemaking,” writes CNN.
You may remember that in Texas, et al. v United States, the district court under Judge Hanen held, in part that the Obama Administration had not followed the procedures dictated by the APA, as grounds for an injunction of DAPA, Obama’s other unconstitutional amnesty for parents of legal residents and citizens. I haven’t checked, but it’s likely that he violated the APA with DACA also. So this seems a pointless strategy.
The Obama Admin appealed the injunction to the Fifth Circuit, which held in part that:
“The [Immigration & Naturalization Act] prescribes how parents may derive an immigration classification on the basis of their child’s status and which classes of aliens can achieve deferred action and eligibility for work authorization. DAPA is foreclosed by Congress’s careful plan; the program is ‘manifestly contrary to the statute’ and therefore was properly enjoined [by the lower court].”
“Even with special deference” to the Secretary [of DHS], the INA flatly does not permit the reclassification of millions of illegal aliens as lawfully present and thereby make them newly eligible for a host of federal and state benefits, including work authorization.”
The Fifth Circuit also quoted Obama, making this childlike assertion:
“As the district court recognized, the President explicitly stated that it was the failure of Congress to enact such a program that prompted him . . . to change the law.’”
When the case reached the Supreme Court, it was deadlocked 4–4, so the Fifth Circuit decision stands, and this is settled law.
DACA has the same defects as DAPA, so if these suits reach the Supreme Court, the same four justices will find in the same way, and Gorsuch will surely agree with them. So IMO, this action is either malicious prosecution, seditious conspiracy or both.