New York, California, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington All Tell Texas To “Take A Seat, Son.”

The above states, all cogently versed in the actually-applicable federal law, have signed on to a 21 page amicus brief tonight, tell Texas. . . that it is. . . clueless.

The Amici also make plain that Judge Tipton’s TRO is wrongful. That will be rectified in a few weeks, but this is the sort of brief I was referring to, two nights ago, in opposition to the xenophobic mess other amici filed that night. Do read this one, instead:

. . .Texas seeks sweeping nationwide relief that would harm millions of residents in Amici States who are immigrants themselves or who count immigrants among their family members, neighbors, and colleagues. And Texas’s reliance on the eleventh-hour agreement that it signed with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) not only violates fundamental principles of federal law, but disrespects the sovereignty of its fellow States, who neither signed nor consented to the terms of this agreement. This Court should reject Texas’s arguments and decline to issue a preliminary injunction here. . . .

It has long been recognized that the Executive Branch has the discretion to “decline to execute a final order of deportation.” Reno v. Am.-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471, 484, (1999) — a step further, even, than the mere temporary pause on removals ordered here. Such discretion is expressly recognized by federal law, such as 8 C.F.R. § 1241.6(a), which provides DHS with discretion to stay removal “for such time and under such conditions as [the agency] may deem appropriate.” See also 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(3) (recognizing circumstances in which the executive branch does not remove an individual within 90-days of the order of removal); 8 C.F.R. § 1241.6(a).

This “[d]iscretion in the enforcement of immigration law embraces immediate human concerns”—namely, the severe harms and disruptions that removals cause to immigrants, their families, and their communities. Arizona, 567 U.S. at 396. The long history of Executive Branch decisions to desist from removals is also sensible given that such enforcement inevitably harms foreign nationals, whose treatment within this country is “[o]ne of the most important and delicate of all international relationships,” Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 64 (1941). . . .

Have a non-blizzard-obscured, non ice-stormed, non-WAY-sub-zero weekend, now — one and all of good will. . . grinning.


There are no comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: