The death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia
has created turmoil in Washington DC and on the Presidential campaign trail. Republicans are uniformly calling on the President to refrain from nominating anyone to fill the vacancy due to the upcoming Presidential election. Within hours of the news of the Justice’s death, Senator Mitch McConnell, the Senate Majority Leader and the man who controls the Senate’s agenda, stated that the “vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.”
What just happened in the 5th Circuit?
The U.S. Court of Appeals formally upheld Judge Hanen’s injunction prohibiting the administration for implementing DAPA & DACA.
The injunction prohibited the administration from implementing DAPA and expanded DACA until the litigation brought by Texas and twenty six other states was resolved. Injunctions are sought to preserve the status quo while the legality or proposed actions is resolved. Judge Hanen ruled that Texas presented evidence of the possible injury if DAPA or DACA
went forward and that Texas was likely to succeed in challenging DAPA and expanded DACA.
The Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in a 2-1 decision
refused the Obama administration’s request for an emergency stay of Judge Andrew Hanen’s injunction against the President’s deferred action (DAPA and DACA+). This action leaves the stay in place, meaning that the administration remains unable to proceed with DAPA and DACA relief to millions of immigrants. Two judges of the 5th Circuit found that the Obama administration was “unlikely to succeed” in establishing that Texas and the other 25 states lack a sufficient injury, or “standing,” to challenge the President’s actions in creating DAPA and DACA+.
A victory for the Obama administration in a case related to DACA in the 5th Circuit should give hope to millions waiting for deferred action of DAPA and expanded DACA. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a decision in an immigration case today. No, not that case, but close
. The Fifth Circuit ruled in another case challenging deferred action called Crane v.