The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas in Dallas today dismissed the court suit brought by 10 ICE agents against DACA -- the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals in which the Administration unilaterally offered a temporary amnesty and work permits to hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens.
The Obama Administration's Department of Homeland Security granted this amnesty despite Congress having repeatedly refused to enact such an amnesty and even voted it down in December 2010. The ICE agents contended that DACA led to their bosses in DHS ordering them to violate what Congress had required them to do through enacted legislation.
The federal court today essentially agreed with the ICE agents.
But the court dismissed the court suit today based on a procedural question and not the merits of the case.
The judge wrote in today's opinion that he had concluded that:
Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the Department of Homeland Security has implemented a program contrary to congressional mandate. "
Kris Kobach, the lead attorney for the ICE agents, issued this statement:
Today, the court once again made clear that the Obama Administration’s DACA Directive violates federal law.
"The question that the court focused on in the ruling was a purely jurisdictional one—whether this case can proceed in federal court or whether it must go through administrative bodies in the executive branch.
"But the fact remains that the Obama Administration is ordering ICE agents to break the law, as recognized by a federal court. It is imperative that this attack on the rule of law be stopped, one way or another.”
The judge's opinion included this paragraph:
In its previous Order, the Court found that Congress’s use of the word “shall” in Section 1225(b)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act imposes a mandatory obligation on immigration officers to initiate removal proceedings against aliens they encounter who are not “clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted.” Mem. Op. & Order 15–22, Apr. 23, 2013, ECF No. 58; see 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A); see also In re: Application of USA for Historical Cell Site Data, No. 11-20884, slip op. at 10–11 (5th Cir. July 30, 2013) (finding that the word “shall” in Section 2703(d) of the Stored Communications Act imposes a mandatory duty on courts to issue an order for disclosure when certain prerequisites are satisfied). Therefore, the Court concluded that Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the Department of Homeland Security has implemented a program contrary to congressional mandate. However, the Court finds that Congress has precluded Plaintiffs from pursuing their claims in this Court by enacting the CSRA.”
CSRA refers to the Civil Service Reform Act.
ROY BECK is Founder & President of NumbersUSA
Originally Published: Wed, Jul 31st 2013 @ 4:58pm EDT