Not many people would accuse Obama or his Department of Justice of being in any way reserved or humble. After all, it takes a pretty brazen Attorney General to meet privately with Bill Clinton on a tarmac in Phoenix at the very same time that Hillary is under a criminal investigation by the FBI. So you can imagine our complete shock when we discovered that the U.S. Department of Justice decided to stay ongoing litigation of Obama's amnesty plan until February 20, 2017, citing a "change in Administration." Granted, the litigation likely wouldn't have been resolved before Trump's inaguaration anyway, but it's shocking nontheless.
Pursuant to this Court’s October 6, 2016, Order, the parties have met and conferred and have reached agreement on how to proceed in this case. For the reasons stated below, the parties jointly move to stay proceedings on the merits of Plaintiffs’ claims, including the obligation to propose a schedule for resolution of the case, until February 20, 2017. The basis for this motion is as follows:
1. This Court previously stayed the merits of this litigation, including the obligation to propose a schedule to resolve the merits of this action, pending Fifth Circuit and Supreme Court proceedings so that the Court and the parties could benefit by knowing the disposition of any appeal. See ECF Nos. 164, 200, 271, 320, 364, 422; Minute Entry (Aug. 31, 2016).
2. This case is at a unique juncture in which a preliminary injunction has been fully litigated to the Supreme Court and the case has now returned to this Court. Given the change in Administration, the parties jointly submit that a brief stay of any further litigation in this Court before beginning any further proceedings would serve judicial efficiency and economy so that the parties have a better understanding of how they might choose to move forward. In the meantime, this Court’s preliminary injunction of February 16, 2015, would remain in effect for the duration of any stay.
3. This Court has the authority to issue a stay of proceedings: “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes of its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936). Accordingly, the parties respectfully submit that further proceedings on the merits of this case, including the submission of a schedule for resolving the merits, should be stayed until February 20, 2017. Because all parties are amenable to a stay of the merits proceedings, moreover, the balance of interests weighs heavily in favor of granting that stay.
According to the Washington Times, Obama's amnesty plan would have applied to more than 4 million illegal immigrants who were either brought to the U.S. as children, or who were parents of American citizens or legal immigrants. Under the Obama program, they were to be granted tentative legal status for three years, preventing them from being deported and entitling them to work permits, which would in turn earn them driver’s licenses and some taxpayer benefits.
Judge Hanen, a Texas-based federal judge, ruled the amnesty violated the Administrative Procedure Act because it was a major policy change that should have been put out for public review and comment. An appeals court went further, ruling that Obama broke immigration law, which never envisioned so broad a use of “deferred action” powers. Per Politico:
The Brownsville, Texas-based federal judge assigned to the case, Andrew Hanen, issued a preliminary injunction in January 2015 barring the Obama administration from expanding a program to grant quasi-legal status and work permits to illegal immigrants who entered the country as children, as well as a new effort to grant similar status to illegal-immigrant parents of U.S. citizens and green card holders.
Hanen’s preliminary injunction against the expanded Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and the new Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) program was upheld by a federal appeals court. The Obama administration appealed to the Supreme Court, which took the case but deadlocked, 4-4, in the dispute earlier this year.
The result left the preliminary injunction in place and the Obama plans dashed for the remainder of his term. However, the case remained open for a potential trial on the merits and a possible second trip on appeal through the courts.
Somehow we suspect that Trump's administration will decide not to pursue this particular piece of legislation any further...but that's just a hunch.
http://www.scribd.com/embeds/331663481/content