Enter to open, tab to navigate, enter to select
Fifth Circuit Affirms Injunction Against President Obama's Immigration Actions
Practical Law Legal Update w-000-7533 (Approx. 5 pages)
Fifth Circuit Affirms Injunction Against President Obama's Immigration Actions
by Practical Law Labor & Employment
| Published on 17 Nov 2015 • USA (National/Federal) |
In Texas v. United States, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's injunction blocking implementation of several of President Obama's executive immigration actions. The Fifth Circuit held that the 26 states challenging the president's immigration actions had established a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
On November 9, 2015, in Texas v. United States, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, in a 2-1 decision, the district court's injunction blocking implementation of several of President Obama's executive immigration actions. The Fifth Circuit held that the 26 states challenging the president's immigration actions had standing and had established a likelihood of success on the merits of their substantive and procedural APA claims. ( (5th Cir. Nov. 9, 2015).)
Background
The plaintiffs, comprised of Texas and 25 other states opposing President Obama's actions on immigration, filed suit seeking to enjoin the executive branch's plans to expand the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and establish the new Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) prosecutorial discretion program. DAPA would stay deportation proceedings and grant employment authorization to several million people currently without lawful status in the US. For more information on these programs, see Legal Update, Immigration Executive Actions Announced by President Obama. The plaintiffs argued that implementation of DAPA, in the form of Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Jeh Johnson's DAPA Directive, violated the Take Care Clause of the US Constitution, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
On February 16, 2015, the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas issued a preliminary injunction temporarily blocking implementation of President Obama's executive actions (see Legal Update, Preliminary Injunction Blocks President Obama's Executive Immigration Actions: SD Texas). The district court found that the plaintiffs established:
- Standing to bring the lawsuit and the standing necessary for APA reviewability.
- A likelihood of success on the merits in challenging the implementation of the DAPA program.
The government moved the Fifth Circuit to stay the preliminary injunction pending a decision on the merits. On May 26, 2015, the Fifth Circuit denied the government's request for a stay (see Legal Update, Injunction Against President Obama's Immigration Actions Upheld: Fifth Circuit).
The government then appealed the district court's grant of the injunction on the merits to the Fifth Circuit.
Outcome
The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision granting the preliminary injunction, holding that the plaintiffs had established:
- Standing to challenge DAPA based on the increased costs to Texas in having to issue driver's licenses to DAPA beneficiaries.
- A substantial likelihood of success of the merits for their:
- procedural APA claims; and
- substantive APA claims.
- All other elements required for an injunction, including:
- a substantial threat of irreparable injury absent an injunction; and
- no disservice to the public interest if an injunction is granted.
After finding that the plaintiffs had standing to bring the lawsuit and the standing necessary for APA reviewability, the majority found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that plaintiffs had established a likelihood of success on the merits on their procedural APA claims.
The majority also found that plaintiffs had established a likelihood of success on the merits on their substantive APA claims, an issue not addressed by the district court. The court found that implementation of DAPA exceeded the executive branch's authority under the APA because:
- If Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. applies, Congressional legislation (particularly the INA) addresses the precise issues implicated by DAPA, including the:
- ways in which illegal aliens can reside in the US;
- process by which illegal aliens obtain lawful immigration status based on their children's immigration status; and
- classes of aliens that are eligible and ineligible for work authorization and deferred action.
- DAPA raises significant political and economic questions that Congress would have expressly delegated to an administrative agency had Congress wanted to do so.
- Even if Congress has not addressed the precise issues implicated by DAPA (and assuming Chevron applies), DAPA is an "unreasonable interpretation that is manifestly contrary" to the INA because the INA does not authorize the DHS Secretary to confer lawful status and work authorization to all illegal aliens currently in the US.
- DAPA does not have a basis in historical practice because it does not conform with prior deferred action programs.
- Any perceived Congressional inaction on the goals purportedly addressed by DAPA does not vest the DHS Secretary with power to implement DAPA.
Practical Implications
As a result of the Fifth Circuit's decision, President Obama's immigration actions remain enjoined. The US has said it will appeal to the US Supreme Court.