Hanen, a Bush appointee, a political decision, on administrative grounds, that a Bush created department Homeland Security did not follow proper administrative procedure.
"Hanen found that the Department of Homeland Security violated longstanding procedural devices aimed at giving “notice” to the public of agency action"
A Texas Judge Has Blocked Obama's Immigration Action. Yes, It's Political.
By Cristian Farias
Late on Monday, a federal judge in Texas granted .. https://www.scribd.com/doc/255994202/Order-of-Temporary-Injunction-Texas-v-United-States .. a temporary injunction in Texas v. United States, a case brought by 26 states challenging President Barack Obama’s recent executive actions on immigration. The order by U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen, a George W. Bush appointee, has nationwide reach and effectively blocks the implementation of the most important aspects of the new immigration policy, including an expansion .. http://www.uscis.gov/news/alerts/uscis-begin-accepting-requests-expanded-daca-feb-18 —scheduled to begin on Wednesday—of a 2012 directive granting relief from deportation to undocumented students who were brought to the United States as children.
In his 123-page opinion .. https://www.scribd.com/doc/255994067/Memorandum-Opinion-Texas-v-United-States .. accompanying the order, Hanen did not render the new policies unconstitutional—that’s a question reserved for a later trial—but explained at length the legal reasoning justifying a halt to the new Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, or DAPA. Chiefly, Hanen found that the states had “standing” to oppose the measures announced by the president—that is, they could claim their sovereign interests will be harmed if DAPA moves forward—and that they were likely to succeed on their claim that the immigration policies were illegally implemented. Somewhat unexpectedly, he anchored this latter point on the Administrative Procedure Act, an important statute governing federal agencies' discretion to interpret existing law. Here, Hanen found that the Department of Homeland Security violated longstanding procedural devices aimed at giving “notice” to the public of agency action, and that the government could point to no law granting it authority to do so.
[ This bit is hilarious ]
Seemingly wary of the political implications of his ruling, Hanen also cautioned in his decision that “this case does not involve the wisdom, or the lack thereof, underlying the decision ... to award legal presence status to over four million illegal aliens.” But that in itself is politically charged language. Hanen repeats that “legal presence” line several times—which is likely to be a point of contention because the president’s immigration order does not grant legal status to undocumented immigrants. It is only a reprieve from deportation with the attendant benefit of work authorization; both permanent residency and a path to citizenship are off the table. Relying on dubious precedent, Hanen gives more credence to the argument that immigration laws are designed to “protect the states” and sides with them in finding that the federal government exceeded its authority.
But one thing Hanen can’t and won’t do is order DHS to start deporting people. That means that his view that the president’s immigration order “unilaterally allows individuals removable by law to legally remain in the United States” is specious: It misapprehends the government’s ability to marshal its limited resources with respect to deportations. Hanen concedes that “DHS has virtually unlimited discretion when prioritizing enforcement objectives,” but brushes that aside and ultimately agrees with the notion that “DAPA is simply the Executive Branch legislating.”
The next stop for the litigation is the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which covers Texas and is known as one of the more conservative federal appellate courts in the country. But the case will inevitably end up at the Supreme Court, which in recent months has stopped or let stand similarly controversial orders in areas such as same-sex marriage, voting rights, and abortion. Here, though, the political salience of immigration is more pronounced, given all the tug-of-war between Congress and the president on the matter, plus the fact that a majority of the states are the ones bringing suit. Since the justices’ deference to states’ rights is no secret, it wouldn't be a shock if they agree that DAPA should be stopped in its tracks.
Cristian Farias is a journalist and lawyer who writes on civil rights, criminal justice, and the courts. You can follow him on Twitter.
Republicans are attempting to use funding for the Department of Homeland Security as leverage to stop the policy from taking effect. But a House measure to fund the sprawling department on the condition that it not implement the deferred deportation programs has stalled in the Senate in the face of united Democratic opposition.
White House to Seek Emergency Order to Let Immigration Plan Proceed
By MICHAEL D. SHEAR | FEB. 20, 2015
WASHINGTON — The White House on Friday said that lawyers at the Justice Department would seek an emergency order from an appeals court to allow the federal government to issue work permits and provide legal protections to hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants while it appeals a judge's ruling halting the programs.
The move came in response to a ruling issued by a federal judge on Monday night indefinitely postponing President Obama’s sweeping executive actions on immigration.
Officials said the Justice Department would make an official request by the end of the day on Monday.
“We believe that when you evaluate the legal merits of the argument, that there is a solid legal foundation for the president to take the steps that he announced late last year to reform our broken immigration system,” Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, said on Friday.
Mr. Earnest added: “That’s consistent with the way that previous presidents over the course of several decades have used their executive authority. And that is why, you know, we are going to continue to pursue this case in the legal system.”
The president in November announced executive actions that would shield up to five million undocumented immigrants [ http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/21/us/obama-immigration-speech.html ] from deportation and would establish programs that provide work permits to many of those people. The Department of Homeland Security had been scheduled to begin carrying out part of that program on Tuesday.
Judge Andrew S. Hanen of Federal District Court in Brownsville, Tex., said in his ruling, in a case brought by Texas and 25 other states, that the administration had not followed required procedures for changing federal rules. The judge issued an injunction ordering that the program be halted, and government officials quickly postponed the actions to comply with the order.
The decision to seek an emergency reversal of the judge’s injunction indicates the urgency felt by the White House and its lawyers.
In addition to trying to quickly halt the judge’s injunction, White House officials said on Friday that administration lawyers would soon file an appeal on the substance of the judge’s ruling. Mr. Earnest said the administration’s broader legal strategy in fighting challenges to the president’s executive actions on immigration would depend in part on the results of the appeals.
“Once we have taken additional steps through this legal process, we may be in position to give you an update about the status of implementing the program,” Mr. Earnest said. “Obviously some of this will depend on the way that the question of the state is resolved.”
"Ken Paxton, the attorney general of Texas, which is leading the states bringing the lawsuit, hailed the judge’s ruling as a “victory for the rule of law [my emphasis here] in America and a crucial first step in reining in President Obama’s lawlessness.” He said Mr. Obama’s [immigration] actions were “an affront to everyone pursuing a life of freedom and opportunity in America the right way."
Also .. this "seed faith" crap isn't fraud under the rule of law. Yet, since it is demonstrably crook and unfair, it sure as shit should be designated as such under law.
Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Televangelists (HBO)
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
