An appeals court on Friday considered the Obama administration’s plea to lift a hold on its executive action on immigration, which was imposed by a federal judge in February.
Lawyers argued before a three-judge panel from the US fifth circuit court of appeals in New Leans for more than two hours, with the judges’ questions focusing on the rights of a single state to reject federal immigration policy.
The panel has taken the case under advisement and has not ruled.
A coalition of 26 states, led by Texas, filed suit against the federal government over the order, which could help up to 5 million undocumented immigrants stay and work in the US. Federal judge Andrew Hanen halted the order in February, as he considered the lawsuit. Last week, he denied the Obama administration’s request for a stay on that decision.
Justice Department lawyers argued that Texas’ claim is unprecedented and that the federal government gets to implement immigration policy.
“The states do not have standing in the downstream effects of a federal immigration policy,” Benjamin Mizer, the Justice Department’s principal deputy assistant attorney general, told the court.
Judges Jennifer Elrod, a George W Bush appointee, and Stephen Higginson, an Obama appointee, often interrupted the legal arguments with queries. Judge Jerry Smith, a Ronald Reagan appointee, was the third judge on the panel.
Elrod seemed skeptical of the Justice Department’s arguments while Higginson of those brought by Texas.
Opponents of Obama’s order say it rewards people who are breaking US law. The administration sees it as a way to prioritize immigration enforcement.
“This lawsuit transcends national immigration policy – this is about a president who has recklessly acted outside of the boundaries of the US constitution, circumventing Congress to rewrite the law as he sees fit,” said Texas’s attorney general, Ken Paxton, in a statement.
Should the court, the most conservative appellate court in the country, decide to dismiss the stay, the administration would be able to start implementing the programs. If the panel does not reverse Hanen’s decision, a key part of Obama’s legacy could remain uncertain after he exits office.
In November, the president announced a sweeping set of immigration reforms, including the contested Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (Dapa) program.
Demonstrators from both sides of the battle were outside the courthouse in New Orleans.
¡El pueblo unido jamas sera vencido! #RestoteRelief #ImmigrationAction #Inmigración pic.twitter.com/pKRNBxeHbw
— Fair Imm Ref4m Mvmnt (@Re4mImmigration) April 17, 2015
Vivianna Rodriguez had traveled from Alabama to demonstrate outside the courtroom because she wants her mother, who is not in the US legally, to be able to live and work without worrying about being deported. Rodriguez said her mother was pulled over for a routine traffic stop the day before her daughter’s high-school graduation, which her mother then missed because she was held in jail for two weeks.
“I promised her she wouldn’t miss another graduation, which is my college graduation, and that is why I’m here,” she said.
Rodriguez, a senior at the University of South Alabama, said that when Obama announced the DAPA program in November, she “cried her eyes out”. She is optimistic that reforms will be put in place that will allow her family to work legally in the US.
“It gives us hope that one day my parents will actually have enough money to actually be able to buy a home, to take out a loan, to have a bank account, to live the American dream,” she said.
Marielena Hincapié, the executive director of the National Immigration Law Center, was in New Orleans for the hearing.
“It’s important to remember this is not just about a lawsuit,” she told the Washington Post. “It’s about individual members of the community that have deep ties and their ability to achieve stability, dignity and respect.
“We want to lift up that human face and not let it get lost in the legal proceedings.”
