[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]In February, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen blocked Barack Obama’s unconstitutional amnesty plans. More than half the union, 26 states, led by Texas, had filed suit against Obama alleging that his immigration ‘reform’ was not constitutional. Obama pushed forward and asked the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals to lift the ban against his unconstitutional executive action on immigration. The Appeals Court ruled on Tuesday and refused to side with Obama thereby keeping in place the halt on his plan which would have shielded upwards of 5 million illegal aliens from deportation.
[/vc_column_text][banner300 banner=”5517620b381df”][vc_column_text]The government had argued that the president ‘has exclusive authority to enforce immigration laws and can adjust policies to fix a “broken immigration system.”‘ The appeals court did not agree.
Out of the three judges, two on the court panel voted to deny Obama’s request to implement his ‘executive action.’ Fox News reports on the rationale behind the decision.
The majority opinion reasoned that lifting the temporary hold — known in judicial parlance as a “stay” — could cause serious problems for states should they ultimately win their challenge. It said the states have shown that “issuance of the stay will substantially injure” them.
It continued: “A stay would enable DAPA beneficiaries to apply for driver’s licenses and other benefits, and it would be difficult for the states to retract those benefits or recoup their costs even if they won on the merits. That is particularly true in light of the district court’s findings regarding the large number of potential beneficiaries, including at least 500,000 in Texas alone.”
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxon praised the decision by the court. He said in a written statement, “The separation of powers and check and balances remain the law of the land, and this decision is a victory for those committed to preserving the rule of law in America.”
There is no word on whether the Obama Department of Injustice will appeal the decision to a higher court.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]