(Washington, DC) – The American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ) said today a federal court decision granting a request by 26 states – led by Texas – to temporarily block President Obama’s executive action on illegal immigration represents a “significant victory” against the president’s unconstitutional overreach.
The ACLJ represents 68 Members of Congress – including the two U.S. Senators from Texas – Senators Ted Cruz and John Cornyn, as well as Representative Bob Goodlatte, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. The ACLJ is deeply involved in the case and filed an amicus brief backing the legal challenge and requesting the court grant the preliminary injunction.
“This decision represents a significant victory against the unconstitutional overreach by President Obama,” said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ. “We are extremely pleased the court concluded what we have argued from the start: the president overstepped his authority by changing the law and setting new immigration policy. The manner in which the President acted is unconstitutional, unlawful and a violation of the separation of powers. Impatient presidents don’t get to change the law.”
In granting the preliminary injunction, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen wrote in a memorandum accompanying his order that the lawsuit should go forward and that without a preliminary injunction the states will “suffer irreparable harm in this case.”
“The genie would be impossible to put back into the bottle,” he wrote, adding that he agreed with the plaintiffs’ argument that legalizing the presence of millions of people is a “virtually irreversible” action.
In his opinion, Judge Hanen accused Obama administration officials of being “disingenuous” when they said the president’s initiatives did not significantly alter existing policies. In the words of Judge Hanen, the programs were “a massive change in immigration practice” that would affect “the nation’s entire immigration scheme and the states who must bear the lion’s share of its consequences.” Further, he said the executive actions had violated laws that the federal government must follow to issue new rules, and he determined “the states have clearly proven a likelihood of success on the merits.”
In the amicus brief filed in this case, the ACLJ concluded that the “Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits because the DHS (Dept. of Homeland Security) directive violates the Constitution, disrupts the separation of powers, and amounts to an abdication of their constitutional and statutory duty.”
A total of 68 Members of Congress – including three U.S. Senators – have signed on to the ACLJ amicus brief. The complete list of lawmakers represented in the amicus brief is here.
At the same time, the ACLJ also represents more than 70,000 Americans who have signed on to the ACLJ’s Committee to Defend the Separation of Powers.
In December, Sekulow presented detailed testimony before the House Judiciary Committee explaining why the president’s action on immigration exceeded his executive authority.
Led by Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow, the American Center for Law & Justice is headquartered in Washington, D.C.
As the government shutdown enters its second month, congressional Democrat leadership still remain intransigent on reaching a compromise that would open the government and also provide funding for some type of barrier on the U.S. border with Mexico. Meanwhile, thousands of people in at least two...
By ending DACA, the President did the right thing. Yesterday, the Trump Administration officially rescinded former President Obama’s unconstitutional Executive action referred to as DACA – or the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. DACA – which President Obama infamously said he took an action...
Earlier today the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released two new memos outlining the Trump Administration’s plan to aggressively enforce the current immigration laws of the country, which will likely result in a massive expansion of the number of illegal immigrants detained and deported.
Words can be powerful conduits for truth. But in politics, language can also serve to camouflage public harm under the gloss of an appealing label. Take, for example, the “Sanctuary City” movement. A host of cities have passed local rules under the guise of that attractive mantra, creating...