view or here - Center for Human Rights & Constitutional
! ! 1! CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL LAW ! 256!SOUTH!OCCIDENTAL!BOULEVARD! LOS!ANGELES,!CA!90057! Telephone:!!(213)!388E8693! Facsimile:!!(213)!386E9484! www.centerforhumanrights.org! April&10,&2015& ! The!Obama!Administration’s!Missteps!in!Issuing!and!Defending!the! DAPA/DACA!Programs.1!! ! President&Obama&has&tried&his&hand&at&administrative&reform&primarily&by&issuing& two&programs&to&give&some&immigrants&temporary&“deferred&action&status”&and&work& permits&for&two&to&three&years&if&they&have&U.S.&citizen&children&and&have&resided&here& since&January&2010&(DAPA),2&or&if&they&were&brought&here&as&children&(DACA&and& expanded&DACA).3&& & For&now,&implementation&of&DAPA&and&expanded&DACA&has&been&blocked&by&the& federal&courts,&primarily&because&the&DHS&failed&to&publish&DAPA/expanded&DACA&as& “proposed®ulations,”&and&give&the&public&30&days&to&comment&before&implementing&the& directives&as&agency®ulations.&& & !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1 !Report'by'Peter'Schey,'President,'Center'for'Human'Rights'and'Constitutional'Law'(Los' Angeles,(CA).(The(positions(that(follow(are(based(upon(many(years(of(successfully( litigating'major'class'action'cases'in'the'federal'courts,'including'the'U.S.'Supreme'Court,& involving'millions'of'immigrant'class'members.& 2 !The$Deferred$Action$for$Parents$of$Americans$and$Lawful$Permanent$Residents$(DAPA)$ was$announced$by$DHS$Secretary$Johnson$on$November$20,$2014,$and$grants$“deferred$ action'status”'and'temporary'work'permits&for&three&years&to&most&parents(of(U.S.(citizens( and$lawful$permanent$residents$provided$they$have$lived$in$the$United$States$continuously$ since&January&1,&2010,&and&pass&required&background&checks.&!& 3 !In#2012,#the#Deferred#Action#For#Childhood#Arrivals%program%(DACA)%was%implemented% by#then#DHS#Secretary#Janet#Napolitano.#The#program#permits#young#adults#born#outside# the$United$States,$but$raised$in$this$country,$to$apply$for$“deferred$action$status”$ (temporary*legal*status)*and*work*permits*for*two!years.'On'November'14,'2015'DHS' Secretary(Johnson(announced(a(policy(expanding(the$population$eligible$for$the$DACA$ program'to'people'of'any'current'age&who$entered$the$United$States$before$the$age$of$16$ and$lived$in$the$United$States$continuously$since$January&1,&2010,&and&extending&the&period& of#DACA#and#work#authorization#from#two#years#to#three#years.!& ! ! 1! 1! ! ! 2! At&a&town&hall&meeting&in&Miami&on&February&25,&2015,&the&President&announced& that&he&would¬&be&deterred&by&“one&federal&judge”&(i.e.&federal&district&court&Judge& Andrew&S.&Hanen&in&Texas&who&has&enjoined&the&DAPA/&expanded&DACA&programs).&He& told&the&crowd&that&his&administration&will&become&“even&more&aggressive&in&the&weeks& and&months&to&come&…&We’re&going&to&be&as&aggressive&as&we&can.”4&There&are&several& critically&important&steps&President&Obama&could&take&to&better&protect&DACA&recipients& and&potential&DAPA&recipients.&&& & The&Administration&decided&to&issue&DAPA/DACA&as&a&“policy”&(basically&a& “privilege”&for&applicants)&that&can&be&changed&overnight&by&any&future&Administration,& rather&than&as&a&formal&“regulation”&(also&called&a&“substantive&rule”)&that&extends&real& rights&to&applicants&and&cannot&be&cancelled&overnight.&Under&the&Administrative& Procedures&Act&(APA),&a&federal&agency&must&first&publish&a&substantive&rule&in& “proposed”&(draft)&form&and&the&public&must&be&given&30&days&to&comment&before&the& regulation&is&finally&adopted.&The$Administration’s$refusal$to$issue$DAPA/DACA$as$a$DHS& “regulation”$has$negative$legal$and$practical$consequences$for$millions$of$potential$applicants.&& & If&President&Obama&published&DAPA/DACA&as&a&formal®ulation:&(1)&the&legal& basis&for&the¤t&injunction&blocking&DAPA/expanded&DACA&would&be&wiped&out& without&risking&lengthy&appeals,&(2)&DAPA/DACA&would&become&a&“substantive&right”& instead&of&a&“privilege”&giving&applicants&and&recipients&stronger&enforceable&legal&rights,& and&(3)&a&formal®ulation&will&make&it&more&difficult&for&a&future&Administration,& without&advance¬ice&or&the&public’s&opportunity&to&comment,&to&terminate&the& DAPA/DACA&programs&(and&to&place&DAPA/DACA&recipients&in&deportation& proceedings).&The&President&should&show&his&support&for&DAPA/DACA&and&now&issue& these&programs&in&a&formal®ulation.&& & DETAILED!ANALYSIS!OF!THE!DAPA/DACA!LITIGATION!! ! Mr.&Obama’s&immigration&policy&continues&to&come&under&fire&from&both&sides,& with&Republicans&accusing&the&president&of&playing&“partisan&games”&with&the&issue,&and& some&activist&groups&urging&the&White&House&to&go&even&further&and&stop&many&more& deportations.&& && This&report&examines&the&Administration’s&handling&of&the&Texas$v.$United$States& case,&which&has&blocked&implementation&of&the&DAPA/expanded&DACA&programs,&and& additional&steps&the&Administration&could&now&take&to&substantially&improve&the& !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 4 !Obama%says%he%won’t%be%deterred%by%‘one%federal%judge’%on%immigration,"Washington"Times," February(25,(2015.! ! ! 2! 2! ! ! 3! likelihood&that&something&like&the&DAPA/expanded&DACA&programs&can&soon&be& implemented&and&avoid&being&blocked&by&the&federal&courts.&& ! BACKGROUND!ON!DAPA/DACA! & On&November&20,&2014,&Department&of&Homeland&Security&(DHS)&Secretary& Johnson&issued&a&memorandum&to&DHS&officials&instructing&them&to&implement&the& Deferred&Action&for&Parents&of&Americans&and&Lawful&Permanent&Residents&(DAPA)& program&and&expand&the&Deferred&Action&for&Childhood&Arrivals&program&(DACA)& program&in&three&areas.5&DAPA&was&designed&to&provide&temporary&legal&presence&to& several&million&parents&of&U.S.&citizens&and&lawful&permanent&residents&who&have&lived&in& the&country&illegally&for&at&least&three&years.&& & The&rationale&for&the&Administration’s&DAPA/DACA&programs&is¬&new&and&was& expressed&over&30&years&ago&by&former&(Republican)&Attorney&General&William&French& Smith&in&testimony&before&the&Senate&Judiciary&Committee:&]We&have&neither&the& resources,&the&capability,&nor&the&motivation&to&uproot&and&deport&millions&of&illegal& aliens,&many&of&whom&have&become,&in&effect,&members&of&the&community.&By&granting& limited&legal&status&to&the&productive&and&law_abiding&members&of&this&shadow& population,&we&will&recognize&reality&and&devote&our&enforcement&resources&to&deterring& future&illegal&arrivals.]6& & Despite&the&obvious&economic&benefits&to&communities&and&to&U.S.&workers&of& granting&temporary&status&to&a&few&million&long_term&resident&immigrants,7&twenty_six& !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 5 !In#2012,#DACA#was#implemented#by#then#DHS"Secretary"Janet"Napolitano."DACA" provides)that)those)who)were)under)the)age))of))31)on)June)15,)2012,)who)entered)the) United'States'before'June'15,'2007'(5''years''prior)'as'children'under'the'age'of'16,'and''who'' meet$$specific$$educational$$and$$public!!safety''criteria,'are'eligible'for'deferred''action' status%and%temporary%work%permits.%The%Complaint%in%the%Texas%case%does%not%include%the% actions(taken(by(Secretary(Napolitano,(which(have(to(date(formalized(the(status(of( approximately,600,000,youth,and!young&adults.&& 6 !!Joint&Hearing&before&the&Subcommittee&on&Immigration,&Refugees,&and&International&Law& of#the#House#Committee#on#the#Judiciary#and#the#Subcommittee#on#Immigration#and# Refugee&Policy&of&the&Senate&Committee&on&the&Judiciary,&97th&Cong.,&1st"Sess.,"9"(1981).& 7 !Sen.%Jeff%Sessions,%R_Ala.,&is&one&of&many&elected&officials&who&have&described&the& administration’s+action+as+showing+“no+concern+about+the+employment+prospects+of+lawful+ immigrants,*green*card*holders*and*native_born%Americans.”%Sen.!Sessions'says'“[t]he'first' thing&we&should&do&is&be&focusing&on&getting&jobs&for&Americans&that&are&unemployed.”&See! http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/amnesty_judge_gets_tough_with_defiant_ ! ! 3! 3! ! ! 4! states&filed&suit&in&a&federal&court&in&Brownsville,&Texas,&challenging&DAPA&and&the& expanded&DACA&programs.8&The&plaintiffs&have¬&sought&to&block&implementation&of& the&DACA&program&that&started&in&2012.&& & On&February&16,&U.S.&District&Judge&Andrew&Hanen&(same&judge&who&allowed&the& border&wall&to&be&built&despite&legal&challenges&we&brought&showing&DHS&had&violated& several&laws&in&the&process&of&seizing&private&lands&to&build&the&wall)&issued&a&preliminary& (temporary)&injunction&blocking&implementation&of&the&DAPA/expanded&DACA& programs&until&a&trial&is&conducted®arding&the&plaintiffs’&claims.9&& & Based$on$several$decades$of$experience$in$many$of$the$most$significant$federal$court$cases$ involving$the$rights$of$immigrants,$I$believe$that$the$Obama$administration$has$roughly$a$fifty$ percent$chance$of$winning$the$Texas$case$on$the$merits.&We&support&the&Administration’s& emergency&appeal&of&Judge&Hanen’s&refusal&to&stay&his&preliminary&injunction.&However,$ the$steps$recommended$below$go$far$beyond$the$Administration’s$current$course$of$action$of$ simply$pursuing$an$appeal$in$the$DAPA/DACA$case.&& & Understanding!Alleged!“Standing”!of!States!in!the!Texas&v.&United&States!Case& & Texas&and&the&25&other&states&seeking&to&block&implementation&of&DAPA/expanded& DACA&must&show&that&they&have&“standing”&to&bring&their&case.&Three&of&the&25&States& have&developed&a&factual&showing&that&under&DAPA&they&would&incur&unreimbursed& costs&associated&with&issuing&driver’s&licenses&and&therefore&claim&they&have&standing&to& challenge&DAPA/expanded&DACA.&The&U.S.&argues&that¬hing&in&DAPA/DACA& “requires&a&State&to&issue&licenses&to&aliens&accorded&deferred&action&[status].”10&&& !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! obama/#YRI19142MSt74Kpm.99.!This!criticism!of!the!Administration!is!misplaced.! Granting!work!permits!to!undocumented!workers!makes!them!less!exploitable!and! decreases!any!unfair!competition!with!US!workers!created!by!their!undocumented!status.!& 8 !!The$plaintiffs$suing$to$block$DAPA/DACA$include$Texas,$Alabama,$Arizona,$Arkansas,$ Florida,)Georgia,)Idaho,)Indiana,)Kansas,)Louisiana,)Montana,)Nebraska,)North)Dakota,) Ohio,&Oklahoma,&South&Carolina,&South&Dakota,&Utah,&West"Virginia,"Tennessee"and" Nevada,'the'Michigan'Attorney'General,'and'the'Governors'of'Mississippi,'Maine,'North' Carolina(and(Idaho.(& 9 !State%of%Texas%v.%United%States,"Civil"No."B_14_254$,$United&States&District&Court! For&The&Southern&District&of&Texas!Brownsville&Division,(Memorandum(and(Order,( Document)145,)filed)02/16/15)(“Preliminary)Injunction”).& 10 !Texas&v.&US,&Appellants’&Reply&To&Opposition&To&Emergency&Motion&For&Stay&Pending& Appeal,'Case:'15_40238&(5th&Cir.)&Document:&00512983435&Page:&1,&Filed:!03/26/2015((US(5th( Cir.%Reply%Brief”).& ! ! 4! 4! ! ! 5! & Showing&how&easily&parties&can&switch&sides,&earlier&when&Arizona&refused&to&issue& drivers&licenses&to&DACA&recipients,&advocates&supported&by&the&Obama&Administration& successfully&argued&that&Arizona&could¬&constitutionally&deny&drivers&licenses&“to& similarly&situated&individuals&[DACA&recipients]&without&a&rational&basis&for&the& distinction.”11&The&Arizona&law&was&preempted&because&it&accepted&federal&employment& authorization&documents&as&proof&of&authorized&presence&for&certain&immigrants&(as&do& most&states)&but¬&for&similarly&situated&DACA&recipients.&See&ADAC,&757&F.3d&at&1067).& The&US&argued&that&refusing&drivers&licenses&to&DACA&recipients&conflicted&with&the&rule& that&“States&enjoy&no&power&with&respect&to&the&classification&of&aliens.”12&The&U.S.&now& argues&“[a]&State&suffers&no&cognizable&injury&from&the&application&of&federal&law&by& complying&with&a&constitutional&mandate&to&issue&licenses&rationally&under&state&law.”13& The&U.S.&doesn’t&really&argue&there&is&no&injury,&but&rather&that&the&injury&is&“self_inflicted”& because&Texas&and&other&states&could&amend&their&rules&so&no$one&with&deferred&action&or&a& work&permit&is&eligible&for&drivers&licenses!14&It&would&hardly&be&a&victory&for&immigrants& if&the&appellate&courts&agree&with&the&Administration&that&Texas&has&no&standing&because& it&could&simply&make&all&immigrants&with&deferred&action&status&or&work&permits& ineligible&for&drivers&licenses&(not&just&DAPA/DACA&people).& & There&is&another&area&of&concern®arding&costs.&The&federal&Government&requires& that&states&run&data&checks&on&immigrant&drivers&license&applicants&and&bills&the&states&to& run&these&background&check&inquiries.&The&states&complain&that&this&is&a&hard&and& federally&mandated&cost&they&must&absorb&solely&if&DAPA/DACA&are&implemented.&& & The&U.S.&argues&that&the&states&have&no&financial&injury&because&there&are& “substantial&financial&benefits&that&the&States&will&gain&from&the&implementation&of&the& Guidance,&such&as&increased&tax&revenues.”15&Numerous&studies&show&that&the&states& !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 11 !See#Arizona#DREAM#Act#Coalition#v.#Brewer#(“ADAC”),#757#3d#1053#(9th#Cir.#2014).# ADAC,%2015%WL%300376,%at%*9%(D.%Ariz.%Jan.%22,%2015).& 12 !!Plyler&v.&Doe,"457"U.S."202,"225"(1982).& 13 !US#5th#Cir.#Reply#Brief#at#2.& 14 !The#States#respond#to#this#position#pointing#out#that#Arizona#refused#to#give#licenses#to# anyone&with&deferred&action."The"U.S."Government"(perhaps"not"looking"forward"to"how"it" would&later&defend&DAPA)&successfully&argued&in&the&Ninth&Circuit&Court&of&Appeals$that$ the$federal$courts$should$block$Arizona’s$rule.$See$Order$and$Permanent$Injunction$5,$Ariz.$$ Dream&Act&Coalition&v.&Brewer,&No.&12_cv_2546%(D.%Ariz.%Jan.%22,%2015)%(enjoining%Arizona% from%denying%driver’s%licenses%to%people%granted%deferred%action!status).'& 15 !Id."at"3."In"an"earlier"case,"when"various"states"sued"the"US"for"failing"to"enforce"the" immigration)laws,)and)claimed)it)was)suffering)financial)losses)through)education,)medical) ! ! 5! 5! ! ! 6! almost&certainly&will&have&a&net&gain&if&immigrants&are&granted&work&permits&through& increased&wages,&sales&tax,&income&tax,&etc.&Nevertheless,&the&appellate&courts&could&find& that&these&new&revenue&streams&are&relatively&speculative,&while&the&driver’s&license&costs& the&States&complain&about&are&fixed&and&fairly&easily&determined.16&& & Finally,&the&U.S.&Government&has&offered&a&“back_up”&position&to&the&Court&of& Appeals&under&which&some&immigrants&would&get&DAPA/DACA&and&others&would¬,& depending&on&where&they&live.&In&a&brief&filed&March&26,&2015,&with&the&Court&of&Appeals,& the&Obama&Administration&argues&that&if&the&Court&agrees&that&issuing&drivers&licenses&is& an&“injury”&that&gives&some&states&“standing”&to&challenge&DAPA/expanded&DACA,&and& if&the&Court&of&Appeals&agrees&Judge&Hanen&properly&issued&a&preliminary&injunction& because&the&Administration&failed&to&publish&DAPA/expanded&DACA&as&a&proposed& regulation,&then&“[b]ecause&the&district&court&only&found&Texas&to&incur&financial&injury& from&issuing&driver’s&licenses,&the&injunction&should&be&stayed&with&respect&to&all&aliens& who&do¬&reside&in&Texas,&or&at&the&very&least,&to&all&aliens&who&reside&in&non_plaintiff& States.”&We$do$not$support$this$“backLup”$argument$as$it$provides$the$courts$with$an$opening$to$ issue$a$compromise$ruling$that$wipes$out$DAPA/expanded$DACA$in$about$26$states.&& & There’s&a&reasonable&possibility&the&appeals&courts&will&conclude&a&state&should¬& have&to&amend&its&rules&(for&the&worse&for&immigrants)&to&get&around&the&drivers&license& costs&involved&with&DAPA/DACA.&Given&that&the&“standing”&issues&are&complex,&the&U.S.& Government&has&recently&switched&positions,&and&the&highly&political&nature&of&the&case,& !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and$prison$costs,$the$Fifth$Circuit$Court$of$Appeals$concluded$the$States$did$not$have$ standing(because(those(costs(are(attributable(to(States’(laws.(Texas&v.&United&States,"106"F.3d" 661,$666$(5th$Cir.$1997),$squarely$holds$that$costs$associated$with$providing$educational,$ medical,)and)penal)services)to)unlawful)aliens"are"attributable"to"States’"laws"and"their" constitutional*duties*rather*than*to*federal*law.*& 16 !!The$States$also$argue$that$(1)$they$have$standing$because$they$will$suffer$“parens$ patriae”(injuries(from(economic(discrimination(against(their(citizens((relying%on%the% Supreme'Court’s'decision'in''Alfred'L.'Snapp'&''Son,'Inc.'v.'Puerto'Rico'ex'rel.'Barez,"458"U.S." 592$(1982)),$and$(2)$that$implementation$of$DAPA/expanded$DACA$would$leave$States’$ police'powers'preempted'by'federal'actions'that'do'not'comport'with$bicameralism$and$ presentment,)citizens)(relying)on)the)Supreme)Court’s)decision)in))Wyeth&v.&Levine,"555"U.S." 555"(2009))."See"Plaintiffs’"Motion"for"Preliminary"Injunction"at"25_28#(Dec.#4,#2014)#[ECF# No.$5];$Plaintiffs’$Reply$in$Support$of$Motion$for!Preliminary*Injunction*at*42_64#(Jan.#7,# 2015)&[ECF&No.&64].&These&are&secondary&standing&arguments&that&may&be&important&in&the& appeals&process&but&will¬&be&discussed&here&because&they’re&less&likely&to&succeed&to& establish)standing)than)the)States’)fiscal&loss&argument..& ! ! 6! 6! ! ! 7! whether&the&appellate&courts&agree&with&Judge&Hanen&that&the&states&have&standing&is&an& open&question&that&could&come&out&either&way.17&& & Understanding!the!Merits!of!the!DAPA/DACA!Legal!Challenge! & Brief$overview$of$deferred$action$status$ & It&is&important&to&understand&some&background®arding&“deferred&action&status,”& the&status&that&DAPA/DACA&extend&to&certain&immigrants.&The&laws&created&by&Congress& in&the&Immigration&and&Nationality&Act&(INA)&do¬&directly&grant&anyone&deferred& action&status.&However,&Congress&has&passed&laws&that&do&reference&the&administrative$ practice&of&deferred&action&status.18& & Nor&have&the&requirements&for&deferred&action&status&been&included&in&agency& regulations.&Instead,&the&criteria&for&deferred&action&status&were&included&in&the&former& INS’s&“Operations&Instructions”&(OIs).19&&The&OIs&made&clear&that&deferred&action&status&is& “an&act&of&administrative&choice&to&give&some&cases&lower&priority&and$in$no$way$an$ entitlement…”&(Emphasis&added)20&These&Operations&Instructions&were&withdrawn&on& !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 17 !!Judge&Hanen&also&found&that&the&States&could&bring&suit&under&“abdication&standing.”& The$court$described$“abdication$standing”$as$“a$situation$when$the$federal$government$ asserts&sole&authority&over&a&certain&area&of&American&life&and$excludes$any$authority$…$ by#a#state;#yet#subsequently#refuses#to#act#in#that#area.”#In#its#appeal#to#the#5th!Circuit,( the$Administration$points$out$why$this$basis$for$the$State’s$standing$is$baseless:$Over$ the$past$six$years,$DHS$has$removed$2.4$million$immigrants$and$focused$substantial$ additional(resources(on(border(security.(We(agree.(There(is(little(basis(for"granting" standing(to(States(on(the(basis(of(“abdication.”(Unfortunately,(this(Administration(has( detained'and'deported'millions'of'people.& 18 !For$example,$in$8"U.S."Code"§"1227(d)(2)"–!entitled'Deportable'aliens'–!the$law$states:$ “The$denial$of$a$request$for$an$administrative$stay$of$removal$under$this$subsection$shall$ not$preclude$the$alien$from$applying$for$a$stay$of$removal,$deferred%action,"or"a"continuance" or#abeyance#of#removal#proceedings#under#any#other#provision#of#the#immigration#laws#of# the$United#States.”#(Emphasis#added).#Nevertheless,#no#federal#statute#appears#to#directly# authorize*deferred*action*status*or*discuss*its*requirements.! 19 !The$following$were$factors$for$the$INS$District$Director$to$consider:$(1)$The$likelihood$of$ ultimately)removing)the)alien;)(2))The)presence)of)sympathetic)factors;)(3))The)likelihood) that$because$of$sympathetic$factors$a$large$amount$of$adverse$publicity$will$be$generated;$ and$(4)$Whether$the$individual$is$a$member$of$a$class$of$deportable$aliens$whose$removal$ has$been$given$high$enforcement$priority$(e.g.$terrorists,$drug$traffickers).& 20 !!See!former&O.I.&§242.1(a)(22).&See&also&Standard&Operating&Procedures#for#Enforcement# ! ! 7! 7! ! ! 8! June&24,&1997.&However,&the&relief&continues&to&be&available&to&certain&visa&applicants&and& to&undocumented&immigrants&with&significant&medical&conditions&or&close&U.S.&citizen&or& lawful&resident&relatives&with&significant&medical&conditions.&The&vast&majority&of&cases&in& which&deferred&action&is&granted&involve&medical&grounds.21& & An&existing&immigration®ulation&at&least&recognizes&the&existence&of&deferred& action&status.&8&C.F.R.&Section&274a.12(c)(14)&states&that&certain&immigrants&may&be&granted& employment&authorization,&including&an&immigrant&“who&has&been&granted&deferred& action,&an&act&of&administrative&convenience&to&the&government&which&gives&some&cases& lower&priority,&if&the&alien&establishes&an&economic&necessity&for&employment.”&! & Important&to&the&analysis&discussed&below,&it&is&widely&accepted&that&because&the& “deferred&action&status”&program&has&never&been&formalized&into&agency®ulations,&and& exists&only&as&DHS’s&“administrative&choice”&to&give&some&cases&lower&priority,&there$is$ virtually$no$judicial$review&of&decisions&concerning&deferred&action&status.&Reno$v.$American$ Arab$AntiLDiscrimination$Comm.,&119&S.Ct.&936&(1999).$ & The$States’$argument$that$the$DAPA/DACA$program$is$unconstitutional$and$violates$the$ Administrative$Procedures$Act$(APA)$ & Texas&and&the&other&states&argue&that&the&DAPA/DACA&programs&violate&the&“Take& Care&Clause”&of&the&U.S.&Constitution,&Article&II,&§&3.&This&provision&requires&that&the& President&take&care&to&faithfully&execute&the&laws&of&the&United&States&and&prevent&him& from&“rewrite[ing]&them&under&the&guise&of&executive&‘discretion.’”22&I&will&review&this& argument&even&though&Judge&Hanen&did¬&rely&on&it&to&issue&his&preliminary&injunction.& However,&if&the&appellate&courts&find&that&the&States&(or&some&of&them)&do&have&standing,& but&still&set&aside&Judge&Hanen’s&preliminary&injunction&because&they&don’t&agree&that& DAPA_DACA&should&have&been&issued&as&“regulations,”&it&is&fairly&clear&that&Judge& Hanen&will&quickly&issue&a&second&injunction,&this&time&relying&on&the&States’& constitutional&“Take&Care&Clause”&argument.&The&Administration&will&then&have&to& appeal&that&injunction&to&the&Court&of&Appeals.&So&a&brief&review&of&the&constitutional& issue&is&important&as&it&may&provide&the&basis&for&a&future&new&injunction.&& & !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Officers:)Arrest,)Detention,)Processing,)and)Removal)(Standard)Operating)Procedures),)Part) X.;$Meissner,$Comm,$Memo,$HQOPP$50/4$(Nov.$17,$2000)$[Regarding$prosecutorial$ discretion].,,& 21 !USCIS%response%to%CIS%Ombudsman%(Dec.%18,%2006).& 22 !First&Amended&Complaint,&¶&73.& ! ! 8! 8! ! ! 9! Texas&argues&“the&President&cannot&unilaterally,&‘consciously[,]&and&expressly& adopt[]&a&general&policy’&of&non_enforcement&[of&the&deportation&laws]&that$applies$acrossL theLboard.”&See&Motion&for&Prelim.&Injunction,&page&9&(emphasis&added).23& & [T]he&[US&Government]&violated&the&Take&Care&Clause&[of&the&Constitution]&by& unilaterally&creating&a&massive&federal&program&that$is$divorced$from$individualized,$ caseLbyLcase$enforcement$discretion.&It&is&well&settled&that&a&federal&agency&can&make& a&“single_shot&non_enforcement&decision&.&.&.&in&the&context&of&an&individual&case.”& …&But&it&is&equally&well&settled&that&the&President&cannot&adopt&a&“general&policy”& of&non_enforcement&...&& & Id.&at&9_10&(emphasis&added)&(citations&omitted).&&Regarding&DAPA,&the&States&argue&that& DHS’s&policy&directly&contravenes&the&will&of&Congress&because&Congress&has&“taken& several&steps&to&curtail&the&reunification&of&undocumented&immigrants&and&their& documented&family&members,”&by&adopting&statutory&restrictions&such&as&the&10_year& unlawful&presence&(ULP)&bar&“precisely&because&it&was&concerned&that&undocumented& immigrants&would&have&children&in&the&U.S.&and&use&those&children&to&obtain&lawful&status& for&themselves.”24&Judge&Hanen&agrees&that&“no&statute&gives&the&DHS&the&power&it& attempts&to&exercise”&in&the&DAPA/expanded&DACA&programs.25& & As&evidence&of&“rubber_stamping,”&the&States&argue&that&“[o]ut&of&727,164&DACA& applications,&[USCIS]&issued&a&‘Notice&of&Intent&to&Deny’&in&only&6,496&cases&(less&than&1%)& …&Even&more&remarkably,&Defendants&can&point&to&only&two&[Notices&of&Intent&to&Deny]& NOIDs&that&were&allegedly&based&on&‘discretionary’&considerations&(less&than& 0.00028%).”26&In&both&of&those&allegedly&“discretionary”&cases,&the&DACA&applicant& violated&DHS’s&eligibility&criteria&by&“commit[ing]&multiple&felonies&…”&Id.&Judge&Hanen& concluded&that&“[o]bviously,&any&government&program&with&an&approval&rate&that&rounds& to&100%&is¬&dependent&on&case_by_case&analysis.”&Id.&& & Public&statements&issued&by&President&Obama&when&DAPA&was&announced&do¬& help&his&Administration’s&argument&that&the&program&simply&grants&a&discretionary&case_ by_case&decision&to&certain&immigrants.&The&President&announced&that&it&was&the&failure&of& !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 23 !!The$preliminary$injunction$notes$that$about$50_67%$of$potentially_eligible&DAPA& recipients)have)probably)violated)8)U.S.C.)§)1325)(illegal)entry),)and)the)remaining)33_50%$ have%likely%overstayed%their%non_immigrant(visas.(Preliminary*Injunction*at*page*80.& 24 !!Motion&for&Prelim.&Injunction,&page&14.! 25 !!Preliminary*Injunction*at*page*96.& 26 !!Motion&for&Prelim.&Injunction,&page&11.& ! ! 9! 9! ! ! 10! Congress&to&pass&comprehensive&immigration&reform&that&prompted&him&to&“change&the& law.”27&& & While&he&does¬&rely&on&this&finding&to&issue&his&preliminary&injunction,&Judge& Hanen&makes&clear&that&if&his&injunction&is&overturned,&and&the&case&is&returned&to&him,&he& would&then&issue&a&new&injunction&based&on&what&he&sees&as&DHS&having&violated&the& Constitution:&“[W]hen&Congress&intended&to&delegate&to&the&[DHS]&Secretary&the&right&to& ignore&what&would&otherwise&be&his&statutory&duty&to&enforce&the&removal&laws,&it&has& done&so&clearly&...&The&DHS&cannot&reasonably&claim&that,&under&a&general&delegation&[of& power]&to&establish&enforcement&policies,&it&can&establish&a&blanket&policy&of&non_ enforcement&that&also&awards&legal&presence&and&benefits&to&otherwise&removable& aliens.”28& & Neither&immigrant&advocates&nor&the&Administration&should&provide&overly& optimistic&assessments&in&the&area&of&the&President’s&powers&in&areas&covered&by&statutes& enacted&by&Congress.&There&are&numerous&cases&in&which&the&courts,&including&the& Supreme&Court,&have&ruled&that&executive&actions&were&inconsistent&with&acts&of& Congress:&“Under&our&system&of&government,&Congress&makes&laws&and&the&President,& acting&at×&through&[federal]&agencies&…,&‘faithfully&execute[s]’&them.&The&power&of& executing&the&laws&necessarily&includes&both&authority&and&responsibility&to&resolve& some&questions&left&open&by&Congress&that&arise&during&the&lawms&administration.&But&it& does¬&include&a&power&to&revise&clear&statutory&terms&that&turn&out¬&to&work&in& practice.“29&&The&Supreme&Court&has&said&that&“[a]n&agency&may¬&rewrite&clear& statutory&terms&to&suit&its&own&sense&of&how&the&statute&should&operate.”30&Under&Article& I&and&the&separation&of&powers,&“the&lawmaking&function&belongs&to&Congress”&and&may& not&be&handed&off&to&or&appropriated&by&“another&branch&or&entity.”31&& & &Important&for&the&preliminary&injunction&that&was&issued,&the&States&argue&that&the& absence&of&case_by_case&discretion&in&the&granting&or&denial&of&DAPA/expanded&DACA& means&that&the&policy&if&implemented&would&grant&“substantive&rights”&to&recipients&and& therefore$should$have$been$published$as$a$“proposed$regulation,”$the$public$given$30$days$to$ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 27 !!Press%Release,%Remarks%by%the%President%on%Immigration%–!Chicago,)IL,)The)White)House) Office&of&the&Press&Secretary&(Nov.&25,&2014).&See&also&President&Obama’s&statement”&I&just& took$action$to$change$the$law.”$Id."See#also!DHS$website$re$DACA:$“[Y]ou$are!considered)to) be#lawfully#present#in#the#United#States#…”#www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/consideration_ deferred_action_childhood_arrivals_process/frequently_asked_questions.& 28 !!Preliminary*Injunction*at*pages*93_94.$& 29 !!Util.&Air&Regulatory&Grp.&v.&EPA,"134"S."Ct."2427,"2446""(2014)"(UARG).! 30 !!Id.! 31 !!Loving'v.'United'States,"517"U.S."748,"758"(1996).! ! ! 10!10! ! ! 11! comment,$and$the$policy$then$issued$as$a$formal$“regulation.”&The&Obama&Administration& responds&that&DAPA/DACA&involve&“nonsubstantive”&rules&and&therefore&do¬&have&to& be&published&as&formal®ulations.&Judge&Hanen&agrees&with&the&States&and&relies&upon& this&point&of&law&to&issue&his&preliminary&injunction:&“[R]ules&that&award&rights,&impose& obligations,&or&have&other&significant&effects&on&private&interests&…&[are]&considered& substantive&[rules].”32&& & The&Administration’s&arguments&why&it&has¬&issued&DAPA/DACA&as& regulations&are&troubling&for&immigrants&in&this&case,&and&in&general.&Vulnerable& communities&and&their&advocates&almost&universally&want&positive&policies&implemented& into®ulations&because,&as&explained&below,®ulations&provide&greater&protection& against&arbitrary&treatment&or&a&policy&being&unilaterally&cancelled.& & In&its&Motion&for&an&Emergency&Stay&to&the&Court&of&Appeals,&the&Obama& Administration&argues&that&&“the&[DAPA/expanded&DACA&program]&leaves&the& Secretary’s&agents&with&discretion®arding&issuance&of&deferred&action&…&The&Guidance& expressly&provides&that&even&when&the&threshold&criteria&are&satisfied,&“the&ultimate& judgment&as&to&whether&an&immigrant&is&granted&deferred&action&will&be&determined&on&a& case_by_case&basis…”33&Judge&Hanen&disagreed:&“[T]he&only&discretion&that&has&been&or& will&be&exercised&is&that&already&exercised&by&Secretary&Johnson&in&enacting&the&DAPA& program&and&establishing&the&criteria&therein.&That&criteria&is&binding&[on&USCIS&agents]& …&With&that&criteria&set,&from&the&President&down&to&the&individual&USCIS&employees& actually&processing&the&applications,&discretion&is&virtually&extinguished.”34& & Judge&Hanen&concluded&that&“DAPA&is&a&…&‘substantive’&rule&that&should&have& undergone&the¬ice_and_comment&rule&making&procedure&mandated&by&5&U.S.C.&§&553& [the&APA].”35&& & Understanding&the&Appeal&of&Judge&Hanen’s&Preliminary&Injunction& & For&the&moment,&Judge&Hanen&has&refused&to&“stay”&(put&on&hold)&his&preliminary& injunction&while&the&Administration&appeals&that&injunction.&& & & On&March&9,&the&district&court&issued&an&Order&that&postpones&action&on&any& pending&motions.&&On&March&12,&2015,&the&U.S.&Government&asked&the&5th&Circuit&Court&of& !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 32 !!Id."at"page"104.& 33 !!Appellants’*Motion*for*Emergency*Stay*Pending*Appeal,*page*16.& 34 !!Preliminary*Injunction*at*pages*108_109.& 35 !!Id."at"page"112.& ! ! 11!11! ! ! 12! Appeal&for&an&emergency&stay&of&the&injunction&pending&appeal,&in&addition&to&a&motion& for&an&expedited&appeal.&& & The&government&argued:&“The&Secretary&of&Homeland&Security&(Secretary)&seeks&to& effectively&prioritize&the&removal&of&aliens&who&have&recently&crossed&the&border,& committed&crimes,&or&threaten&public&safety&and&national&security&by,&inter&alia,& establishing&guidelines&for&considering&requests&for&temporarily&deferring&removal&of& other&aliens&who&pose&no&such&threats&and&have&longstanding&and&close&family&ties&to&the& United&States.&The&preliminary&injunction&restrains&the&exercise&of&that&prosecutorial& discretion,&a&quintessentially&executive&function&that&is&traditionally&unreviewable.”36.& & The&law&on&what&is&a&“substantive”&rule&that&must&be&published&in&proposed&form& and&open&to&public&comment&for&30&days&before&being&adopted&as&a&formal®ulation&is& not&very&clear.&The&States&have&offered&evidence&that&USCIS&officers&did¬&really&exercise& discretion&when&implementing&DACA&and&the&DHS&Secretary’s&memorandum&on& DAPA/expanded&DACA&makes&clear&those&programs&should&be&implemented&in&the&same& manner&as&DACA.&Public&statements&by&the&Administration&to&the&effect&that&DAPA&is&a& “new&law”&have¬&helped&the&Administration’s&position.&& & However,&as&discussed&below,&I&see&no&reason&why&the&Administration&should¬,& even&now,&publish&DAPA/expanded&DACA&as&proposed®ulations.&As&explained,&this& would&better&protect&immigrants&and&it&would&remove&the&immediate&reason&why&Judge& Hanen&issued&his&injunction.&There&are&therefore&both&strong&policy&and&legal&reasons&why& the&Administration&should&now&publish&DAPA/expanded&DACA&as®ulations.& & Looking&forward&at&the&Texas&case&and&likely&outcomes& & Looking&forward,&if&the&Fifth&Circuit&or&the&Supreme&Court&find&that&some&of&the& States&have&standing&to&sue,&but&disagree&with&Judge&Hanen&that&DHS&was&required&to& publish&DAPA/expanded&DACA&as&a®ulation&and&reverse&his&preliminary&injunction,& he&most&likely&will&quickly&issue&a&new&preliminary&injunction,&this&time,&he&would&say,& because&President&Obama&allegedly&violated&the&“Take&Care”&clause&of&the&U.S.& Constitution.&As&discussed&above,&Judge&Hanen&has&already&clearly&said&that&he&believes& these&programs&violate&the&Constitution.&A&new&preliminary&injunction&based&on&alleged& violation&of&the&Constitution&would&again&take&several&months&to&be&reviewed&by&the& appeals&courts.&& & !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 36 !!Appellants’#Emergency#Motion#for#Stay#Pending#Appeal,#page#1.! ! ! 12!12! ! ! 13! A&trial&to&decide&whether&the&lower&court&should&issue&a&“permanent”&injunction,& and&subsequent&appeals,&could&easily&take&an&additional&few&years.&& & There&are&several&considerations®arding&possible&outcomes&in&the&Texas&case& and&alternative&administrative&actions&that&may&be&taken&(discussed&in&detail&below).&&& & First&and&most&important__as&is&obvious&from&the&Congressional&and&media& response__DAPA&and&DACA&are&political&hot&button&issues.&The&Fifth&Circuit&Court&of& Appeals&is&known&as&a&conservative&court&of&appeals&and&the&Supreme&Court&could&be& evenly÷d&with&four&Justices&voting&that&Texas&has&standing&and&Obama&over_ stepped&his&authority,&four&justices&possibly&voting&in&the&Administration’s&favor,&and& Justice&Kennedy&being&the&swing&vote.&Whatever$else$may$be$involved$in$the$legal$equation,$ this$is$a$very$political$case$and$the$politics$of$the$judicial$path$are$unfavorable$to$the$ Administration.& & Second,&the&early&focus&of&the&case&will&only&be&on&whether&the&plaintiff&States&are& entitled&to&a&“preliminary”&injunction&to&maintain&the&“status&quo”&while&the&merits&of&the& case&are&addressed.&For&now,&what&the&courts&must&decide&is&only&whether&a&preliminary& injunction&should&put&the&DAPA/expanded&DACA&programs&on&hold&until&a&final& decision&is&reached&on&the&merits&of&the&case.&The&appeals&courts&traditionally&give& “deference”&to&lower&court’s&preliminary&injunctions&and&will&only&reverse&such&decisions& if&the&lower&court&“abused&its&discretion.”&Given&the&political&nature&of&the&case&discussed& above,&and&the&fact&that&all&the&Fifth&Circuit&must&decide&for&now&is&whether&Judge&Hanen& abused&his&discretion&when&he&issued&the&preliminary&injunction&(or&refused&to&stay&his& injunction),&there&is&probably&a&50_50&possibility&that&the&Fifth&Circuit&will&set&aside&or& refuse&to&set&aside&the&preliminary&injunction&pending&a&trial&and&a&decision&by&Judge& Hanen&on&whether&a&permanent&injunction&should&be&issued.&& & On&the&other&hand,&in&the&past&few&days,&the&U.S.&Supreme&Court&issued&a& unanimous&decision&in&a&case&finding&that&that&a&federal&agency&is¬&required&to&use&the& APA’s¬ice_and_comment&procedures&when&it&issues&a&new&interpretation&of&a& regulation&that&deviates&significantly&from&a&previously&adopted&interpretation.37&This& recent&decision&may&assist&the&Administration’s&appeal&of&Judge&Hanen’s&preliminary& injunction®arding&compliance&with&the&APA.&& & The&Administration&also&has&strong&arguments&that&8&U.S.C.&§&1103(a)&(§&103(a)&of& the&Immigration&and&Nationality&Act&empowers&the&DHS&to&make&choices&about& immigration&enforcement.&That§ion&provides:&“The&Secretary&of&Homeland&Security& !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 37 !Perez%v.%Mortgage%Bankers%Assoc.,"No.$13–1041,%decided%March%9,%2015.& ! ! 13!13! ! ! 14! shall&be&charged&with&the&administration&and&enforcement&of&this&Act&and&all&other&laws& relating&to&the&immigration&and&naturalization&of&aliens&.&.&.”38&In&addition,&6&U.S.C.&§& 202(5)&charges&the&Secretary&of&DHS&with&“establishing&national&immigration&enforcement& policies&and&priorities,”39&and&DHS&has&increasingly&prioritized&enforcement&against& targeted&groups&using&funds&appropriated&by&Congress.&Finally,&there&is&no&question&that& deferred&action&is&a&longstanding&form&of&prosecutorial&discretion&recognized&by&the& Supreme&Court.40& & Whatever&the&strengths&or&weaknesses&of&the&Administration’s&legal&position& defending&DAPA/expanded&DACA,&this&is&clearly&a&political&case&and&time&is&working& against&the&Administration.&President&Obama&waited&for&several&years&to&address& administrative&reform&hoping&that&Congress&would&adopt&comprehensive&legislative& reform,&a&strategy&many&advocates&questioned&because&the&consensus&in&Congress&needed& to&enact&positive&reform&is¬&present.&In&the&end,&to&its&credit,&the&Administration&issued& its&DAPA/expanded&DACA&programs.&It&then,&however,&fanned&opposition&to&its&program& by&appearing&to&inflate&the&number&of&people&who&may&qualify.&By&this&time&the& Administration&knew&that&its&program&would&be&challenged&in&court,&and&knew&that&the& fate&of&its&program&could&easily&land&up&in&the&hands&of&the&next&Administration&a&few& years&down&the&road.&The&Administration&has&also&downplayed&the&reality&that&if&the&next& Administration&is&fundamentally&hostile&to&immigrants,&or&believes&a&significant&number& of&voters&would&endorse&a&“tough&on&immigrants”&new&President,&people&issued&work& permits&under&DAPA/DACA&could&face&being&placed&in&deportation&proceedings.&This& risk&could&be&reduced&if&DAPA/DACA&were&issued&as&“substantive”&rules&rather&than& merely&as&agency&policy.& ! BEST!NEXT!STEPS!FOR!THE!OBAMA!ADMINISTRATION! & There&is&a&part&of&Judge&Hanen’s&decision&that&curiously&points&out&the&weakness&of& President&Obama’s&DAPA&and&DACA&programs&in&terms&of&protecting&the&rights&of& potential&applicants.&Judge&Hanen&points&out&that&if&President&Obama&issued&DAPA&and& DACA&as®ulations,&they&would&then&have&the&“force&and&effect&of&law.”41.&& & The&Administration&argues&that&DAPA/expanded&DACA&are&only&“interpretive& rules”&or&agency&“policies”&and&“do¬&have&the&force&and&effect&of&law.”42&$Indeed,$the$ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 38 !8"U.S.C."§"1103(a).& 39 !6"U.S.C."§"202(5).& 40 !!Reno%v.%AmericanLArab%AntiLDiscrimination+Committee,!525#U.S.#471#(U.S.#1999).! 41 !!Chrysler(Corp.(v.(Brown,"441"U."S."281,"302–303& 42 !!Shalala%v.%Guernsey%Memorial%Hospital,"514"U."S."87,"99"(1995)& ! ! 14!14! ! ! 15! Administration$has$argued$before$Judge$Hanen$Xthe$Deferred$Action$Guidance$is$not$a$rule$[it$is$a$ “policy”]…$$[U]nlike$substantive$rules,$a…$policy$is$one$\that$does$not$impose$any$rights$[on$ recipients]$…”43&If&the&DAPA/DACA&programs&are&in&fact&only&general&statements&of& “policy”&and¬&issued&as&a&“substantive&rule,”&the&Government&has&argued&in&other& cases&that&the&“policy”&extends&no&rights&to&an&immigrant&arbitrarily&denied&benefits.44& & Regardless&of&the&Administration’s&legal&position,&DAPA&and&DACA&applicants& have&a&strong&interest&in&these&programs&being&treated&as&”substantive”&rules&rather&than& just&agency&“policy.”&If$they$are$arbitrarily$denied$benefits,$they$want$to$be$able$to$argue$that$the$ rule$is$“substantive”$and$they$therefore$have$a$right$to$fair$and$equal$treatment$under$the$rule.&If$ the$rule$is$only$a$“policy,”$as$the$Obama$Administration$has$argued$in$order$to$avoid$publishing$ the$proposed$rule$for$public$comment,$then$the$DAPA/DACA$policy$does$not$have$the$force$and$ effect$of$a$law$or$agency$regulation,$and$applicants$denied$benefits$will$have$very$limited$and$ difficult$remedies.& & Finally,&in&published®ulations&the&Obama&Administration&could&weaken&the& States’&constitutional&arguments&against&DAPA/DACA&by&making&two&things&very&clear:& First,&the&DAPA/expanded&DACA&programs&are&part&of&an&overall&enforcement&package& adopted&long&ago&by&this&Administration,&and&second&that&USCIS&agents&are$in$fact$ authorized$to&exercise$discretion&in&certain&areas&when&implementing&the&programs.& Addressing&these&two&points&in&proposed®ulations&could&significantly&undermine&the& States’&constitutional&challenge&to&the&DHS&memorandum&that&announced&the& DAPA/expanded&DACA&programs.& & In&short,&the&Administration&should&publish&the&rules&of&the&DAPA/DACA& programs&in&the&Federal&Register&for&30&days&public&comment,&and&then&formally&adopt& the&programs&as&substantive&rules.45&& !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 43 !See#Texas#v.#US,"Doc."No."38"at"45& 44 !For$example,$in$Romeiro'De'Silva'v.'Smith,"773"F.2d"1021"(9th"Cir."1985)"the"Government" successfully(argued'and'that'court'agreed'that'“the&[deferred&action&policy]&vests&the& regional&commissioner&with&unfettered&discretion&to&determine&whether&to&grant&an& informal&administrative&stay&of&deportation&to&an&otherwise&deportable&alien,&it&creates&no& protectable&liberty&interest&in&deferred&action,&nor&does&it&create&a&protectable&interest&in& being&considered&for&deferred&action&status.”).&See$also$Phromvipha*v.*U.S.*INS,"1992"U.S." App.$LEXIS$14602&(“We&do¬&have&jurisdiction&to&hear&Phromviphams&objections&to&the&INS& District&Directorms&handling&of&his&deferred&action&application”).! 45 !If#the#Administration#is#prepared#to#issue#the#DAPA/expanded#DACA#programs#as# substantive*rules*it*must*publish*the*proposed*rules*in*the*Federal*Register*and*must*“give* interested%persons%an%opportunity%to%[submit]%…%written%data,%views,%or%arguments.”%5% ! ! 15!15! ! ! 16! & Millions&of&families’&well_being,&safety&and&security&are&at&stake.&As&President& Obama&said&recently&at&a&public&meeting&in&Florida,&he&wants&to&be&“aggressive”&about& defending&and&eventually&implementing&DAPA/expanded&DACA.&If&the&President’s& statements&are&sincere,&then,&as&this&report&has&explained,&there&are&simple&and&quick&steps& the&Administration&should&take&to&strengthen&and&defend&the&proposed&DAPA/expanded& DACA&programs.&Failure&to&promptly&take&these&steps&could&easily&result&in&the& DAPA/expanded&DACA&being&thrown&into&the&dustbin&of&immigration&reform&history& along&with&the&recent&failed&efforts&of&Congress.&& & & & & /&/&/& & & & & /&/&/& !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! U.S.C.%§%553(c).%An%agency%must%consider%and%respond%to%significant%comments%received% during'the'period'for'public'comment.'See#Citizens#to#Preserve#Overton#Park,#Inc.#v.#Volpe,"401" U.#S.#402,#416#(1971).& ! ! 16!16!
© Copyright 2024