From labor disputes cases to labor and employment publications, for your research, you’ll find solutions on Bloomberg Law®. Protect your clients by developing strategies based on Litigation...
A federal appeals court’s blessing of former President Barack Obama’s program for young, undocumented immigrants could be used to justify immigration actions by President Donald Trump, Judge Alex Kozinski suggested Feb. 2 ( Ariz. Dream Act Coal. v. Brewer , 2017 BL 31932, 9th Cir., No. 15-15307, 2/2/17 ).
A 2016 decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit didn’t determine whether the deferred action for childhood arrivals program was within the president’s authority, Kozinski said. But if Arizona can’t implement an immigration-related policy because it was preempted by the president’s action, the court will need to accept that such a stance applies regardless of who holds that office, Kozinski said in a dissent to a decision that left the 2016 ruling in place.
With states already filing and joining lawsuits against Trump’s Jan. 27 immigration order, it’s possible that a federal-state showdown over immigration will happen again. The Ninth Circuit itself already is involved in one of those challenges, having denied the Trump administration’s emergency request to overturn a Feb. 3 federal judge’s order that blocked implementation of the executive order. Neither court has yet addressed the merits of the lawsuit.
These “looming conflicts” between the states and Trump “should serve as a stark reminder: Executive power favors the party, or perhaps simply the person, who wields it,” he wrote. “In its haste to find a doctrine that can protect the policies of the present, our circuit should remember the old warning: May all your dreams come true,” Kozinski said.
But Obama’s authority to implement DACA is different from Trump’s authority to temporarily block refugees and immigrants from certain countries, Stephen Legomsky, a Washington University School of Law professor, told Bloomberg BNA Feb. 3. It’s “simplistic” to assume that approving an exercise of authority on Obama’s part necessarily means that it’s giving a green light to an exercise of a different authority by Trump, just because they both concern immigration, he said.
“It’s apples and oranges,” said Legomsky, who formerly served as chief counsel for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
The Ninth Circuit decision had to do with whether Arizona could deny driver’s licenses to DACA recipients.
That policy had “two defects": The Immigration and Nationality Act allows the Department of Homeland Security secretary to “authorize a stay” in the U.S. of any alien, and it provides that once that stay is authorized, the alien is considered lawfully present, Legomsky said. That’s what happened with DACA, and the Ninth Circuit determined that Arizona didn’t have the authority to say DACA recipients weren’t in fact lawfully present, he said.
But the state also was granting driver’s licenses to other types of noncitizens who, like DACA recipients, also didn’t have lawful immigration status, Legomsky said. The state never came up with a legitimate reason for that, he said.
Trump’s immigration orders stem from different sources of authority, Legomsky said. “Trump has exactly the same powers that Obama did” in the realm of immigration, but “each power has to be analyzed on its own terms,” he said.
Trump “clearly” has the authority to block the admission of refugees, Legomsky said. “He also has the power to ban noncitizens from entering the U.S.,” he said. What is “subject to debate” is whether Trump can exercise that authority by discriminating against members of a certain religion, he said.
That may have to be decided in one or more of the various lawsuits that have been filed in the week since the order came out.
But contrary to Kozinski’s dissent, a court’s finding that DACA was a permissible exercise of presidential authority has no bearing on Trump’s overall immigration powers, Legomsky said. “The fact that you can do X doesn’t also mean you can do Y,” he said.
Rather, Kozinski’s “real beef” appears to be DACA itself, Legomsky said.
Judges Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, Jay S. Bybee, Consuelo M. Callahan, Carlos T. Bea and N. Randy Smith joined Kozinski’s dissent. Judge Marsha S. Berzon, a member of the three-judge panel that decided the case last year, wrote a concurrence further justifying that decision in light of Kozinski’s dissent.
The National Immigration Law Center, the Mexican American Legal Defense Educational Fund, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Arizona State University Alumni Law Group represented the DACA recipients who sued the state. The Arizona attorney general’s office and Fennemore Craig represented the state.
To contact the reporter on this story: Laura D. Francis in Washington at firstname.lastname@example.org
Text of the decision is available at http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Ariz_Dream_Act_Coal_v_Brewer_No_1515307_2017_BL_31932_9th_Cir_Feb.
Copyright © 2017 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)