|
State of Texas, et al. v. United States of America, et al. (Civil No. 1-14-CV-254) is a federal court case concerning a set of executive actions taken on November 20, 2014 by President Obama,〔(uscis.gov: "Executive Actions on Immigration" )〕 in the memorandum of the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson. On February 16, 2015, United States District Judge Andrew S. Hanen, of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Brownsville Division, issued a preliminary injunction against an executive action taken by President Barack Obama that would have given Illegal immigrants legal status and protection and let them apply for work permits.〔Barbash, Fred (February 17, 2015) - ("Federal Judge in Texas Blocks Obama Immigration Orders" ). ''The Washington Post''. Retrieved February 24, 2015.〕〔Preston, Julia & Shear, Michael (February 17, 2015) - ("Dealt Setback, Obama Puts Off Immigrant Plan" ). ''The New York Times''. Retrieved February 24, 2015.〕 The U.S. government on February 23, 2015 asked Hanen to lift his injunction while it appealed his ruling to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.〔(dallasnews.com: "26-state coalition, led by Texas, asks judge to not lift stay in immigration lawsuit" ), 4 Mar 2015〕〔(cmgdigital.com: "Case 1:14-cv-00254 Document 150 - DEFENDANTS’ EMERGENCY EXPEDITED MOTION TO STAY THE COURT’S FEBRUARY 16, 2015 ORDER PENDING APPEAL AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM" ), 23 Feb 2015〕 The DOJ filing asked the court to respond by February 25, 2015. The Obama administration also proposed that Hanen issue a partial stay that would allow every state except for Texas to start implementing Obama’s executive amnesty.〔 On March 3, 2015, the DOJ filed an “Advisory” with the court, notifying it that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services had granted three-year periods of deferred action to 108,081 individuals between the publishing of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Directive on November 24, 2014 implementing Obama’s executive action and Judge Hanen’s injunction order on 16 February 2015. This directly contradicted earlier statements made to the court by DOJ that no applications would be accepted prior to February 18, 2015, nor decisions on such applications would be made prior to March 4, 2015. The states responded by requesting an Opposed Motion for Early Discovery, alleging misrepresentation by the DOJ attorneys as well as DHS officials who are named as defendants in the case concerning when and how parts of the DHS directive would be implemented. On March 13, 2015, Hanen held a supplementary hearing on the DOJ advisory at which Angela Colmonero from the Texas Attorney General's office protested the defendants’ renewal of deferred action permits for an expanded term of not two but three years under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. During the hearings leading to an injunction handed down by Hanen, attorneys with the Department of Justice had claimed that if an injunction was filed nothing would be done. Colmonero said that the Federal Department of Justice (DOJ) informed the Court 15 days after the injunction had been granted, that the Department of Homeland Security had issued the expanded permits that were proposed by the President in his November speech. In an opinion and order published on April 7, 2015, Hanen responded to the Government’s request to stay his temporary injunction order of February 16, 2015. He denied the DOJ request, covering the DOJ’s grounds for the motion point by point. He affirmed his earlier ruling that the plaintiff states had standing; cited statements made by President Obama regarding the applicability of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) that DHS employees would “suffer consequences” if they failed to follow the DHS Directive; cited case law to deny the DOJ request to apply the injunction only to Texas; and addressed the issue of irreparable harm both in regards to the federal government and to the states. Also published on April 7, 2015 was Hanen’s order addressing the states’ request for an Opposed Motion for Early Discovery, regarding the plaintiffs’ allegation that the DOJ and DHS had made misrepresentations to the court during the initial injunction hearing concerning when and how parts of the DHS directive would be implemented. Judge Hanen sided with the plaintiffs, taking the defendants to task for “the multiple representations made by the Government’s counsel” that no action would be taken by DHS prior to February 18, 2015.〔 He went on to cite from the court record instances where DOJ attorneys stated to the court in writing in the Advisory and also orally that no action would be taken enforcing the DHS Directive prior to February 18, 2015. In a sharp rebuke to DOJ counsel, Hanen stated that, “Whether by ignorance, omission, purposeful misdirection, or because they were misled by their clients, the attorneys for the Government misrepresented the facts.” He pointed out that DOJ counsel urged him to rule before they had disclosed that DHS had already begun actions under the DHS Directive, despite their knowledge to the contrary. He proceeded to cite from the Rules of Professional Conduct of the American Bar Association and the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, and chastised defense counsel saying, “Fabrications, misstatements, half-truths, artful omissions, and the failure to correct misstatements may be acceptable, albeit lamentable, in other aspects of life; but in the courtroom, when an attorney knows that both the Court and the other side are relying on complete frankness, such conduct is unacceptable.” Judge Hanen reserved the right to impose sanctions against DOJ counsel pending the results of the directed discovery, then directed the defendants to provide complete records of all drafts of the March 3, 2015 Advisory, including metadata and a list of all persons aware of the Advisory and when they were aware of it. He further enjoined the defendants from destroying or erasing any documents relating to it, whether in hard copy, electronic records, or storage devices. ==Appeals Court== On March 12, 2015, the Obama administration appealed the preliminary injunction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.〔(justice.gov: "Case: 15-40238, Document: 00512966899 - APPELLANTS’ EMERGENCY MOTIONFOR STAY PENDING APPEAL" ), 12 Mar 2015〕 On May 26, 2015, the Court upheld the preliminary injunction by a 2-1 vote.〔Nakamura, David. (Obama administration won’t seek emergency stay from Supreme Court on immigration injunction ), Washington Post, May 27, 2015.〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Texas v. United States」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|