Half of the States Seek Injunction to Halt President’s Executive Order

Half of the States Seek Injunction to Halt President’s Executive Order

By Edward Shulman (382 words)
Posted in Immigration Law on March 03, 2015

There are (0) comments.

Attorneys for the State of Texas went in to federal court this week to argue that President Obama’s executive action on immigration, announced last November, is illegal and that immigration officials who enforce the new measures will be breaking the law. Along with about half of the states, the attorneys for the large border state had the opportunity for oral argument in the U.S. District Court in Brownsville, Texas which itself resides on the southern border with Mexico.

U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen took the matter under advisement and has yet to make any ruling on the lawsuit. Andrew Oldham, an attorney for Texas, told Hanen at the hearing that, “The president does not get to decide what the law is.” Oldham is seeking an injunction to at least temporarily block the order from going in to effect although the ultimate goal is to stop the President’s action permanently. The states joining Texas say Obama violated the Constitution and lacks authority to grant federal benefits to people who enter the country illegally.

On the other side, U.S. lawyers today urged Hanen to deny the states’ bid, arguing that the federal government has broad discretion under the Constitution to “prioritize enforcement resources.” “The purpose of this policy is to continue to focus on our priorities, which are to stop border crossings and remove threats to our nation,” Kathleen Hartnett, a Justice Department lawyer, told the judge.  Historically speaking the federal government has maintained a unique role controlling most aspects of federal immigration policy and attempts by states to interfere with that role have often been rebuffed. At issue here is whether the federal government’s need to choose how it uses its limited resources provides a legal basis to the President’s initiatives. Congress ordered immigration officials to prioritize the removal of criminals and recent immigrants who lacked family ties but didn’t provide the Department of Homeland Security with sufficient funding to do so, Hartnett said. By shifting away from “low-priority aliens,” Homeland Security can spend more on catching dangerous immigrants and those without family ties to the U.S., she said.

The Shulman Law Group endeavors to ensure its clients be kept abreast of all significant developments relating to the process of immigration to the United States particularly where special programs are created for immigrants from particular countries. 

Comments (0)

no comments posted

Leave a comment

* denotes required field
* Email will not be published
* Used to help prevent spam

Text only, html will be removed from comment

To make the long story short - I wouldn't be here now writing this review if it wasn't for him. He fought with me and for me as if he was defending himself and not some stranger from a foreign country. I will highly recommend him - if your case has any chance at all he is the one you need.

-Immigration Client

Breaking News


Two Republican Senators, Tom Cotton of Arkansas and David Perdue of Georgia met with President Trump on Tuesday to discuss a revised and expanded version of their RAISE Act, which they initially presented in March.  RAISE is an acronym for Reforming...

read more


The future of the DACA program hangs in the balance. The Governor of Idaho and ten Attorney Generals, including South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson, have issued a deadline calling for President Trump to rescind DACA by September 5th or they will...

read more


Only United States Citizens are permitted to vote.  Under the current immigration laws, non-U.S. citizens (lawful permanent residents/green card holders, undocumented immigrants, asylees, and refugees) are not eligible to vote in any federal, state,...

read more
© 2015 The Shulman Law Group, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Website Design by Hudson