When a federal court does something right, it merits celebrating

Fifth Circuit vindicates Hanen:

Last November, President Obama announced that he would be halting enforcement of congressional statutes for certain illegal immigrants residing in the United States — some 5 to 6 million, by most estimates — and extending to them work permits, among a number of other benefits. He justified this politically as a necessary response to congressional inaction, and legally as “prosecutorial discretion.” It was neither, as Texas federal judge Andrew Hanen made clear in February, when he granted an injunction blocking implementation of the action to Texas and 25 other states, which had sued the administration. The president “is not just rewriting the laws,” Hanen wrote; “he is creating them from scratch.” The Obama administration appealed to the Fifth Circuit to stay the injunction, but in May, a three-judge panel refused. The Firth Circuit’s 2–1 ruling on Monday upholds that decision and elaborates the legal argument. According to the majority, Texas, at least, has standing to sue, because “DAPA would enable beneficiaries to apply for driver’s licenses, and many would do so,” and so “DAPA would have a major effect on the states’ fiscs, causing millions of dollars of losses.” The opinion affirmed the right of the judiciary to review the action on the grounds that “deferred action . . . is much more than nonenforcement: It would affirmatively confer ‘lawful presence’ and associated benefits on a class of unlawfully present aliens.” And the court suggested that the plaintiffs have “established a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their procedural and substantive APA claims” — to wit, that the executive action is a “substantive,” not merely “interpretive” rule, and as such failed to comply with the terms of the Administrative Procedure Act.

This may wind up in SCOTUS. The Most Equal Comrade is not likely to accept this ruling.

So we must remain girded for war.

But this battle went exceedingly well.