The election of Donald Trump has prompted the Obama administration to throw in the towel and seek a delay until after the inauguration of a court case challenging Obama’s executive fiat effectively granting amnesty and benefits to millions of illegal immigrants.
A Texas judge ruled in February 2015 that Obama’s executive order exceeded his powers under the law, but the case was being appealed. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals twice upheld the injunction and a deadlocked 4-4 Supreme Court left the injunction in place.
The Washington Times is reporting that the Justice Department and the states fighting the amnesty order, which includes Nevada and 25 other states, filed a joint request with federal Judge Andrew S. Hanen saying, “Given the change in Administration, the parties jointly submit that a brief stay of any further litigation in this Court before beginning any further proceedings would serve judicial efficiency and economy so that the parties have a better understanding of how they might choose to move forward.”
In his ruling, Judge Andrew Hanen stated that “ the states cannot protect themselves from the costs inflicted by the Government when 4.3 million individuals are granted legal presence with the resulting ability to compel state action. The irony of this position cannot be fully appreciated unless it is contrasted with the DAPA (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents) Directive. The DAPA Directive unilaterally allows individuals removable by law to legally remain in the United States based upon a classification that is not established by any federal law. It is this very lack of law about which the States complain. The Government claims that it can act without a supporting law, but the States cannot.”
The judge said if the government were allowed to start issuing benefits but the executive is later overturned or legislatively countermanded there would be irreparable harm to both the states and the immigrants.
At the time of the ruling Nevada Attorney General Adam Laxalt called the injunction a victory for the rule of law.