Obama administration attorneys are trying to throw a wrench into a legal effort by Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio to halt the president’s executive actions granting de facto amnesty to millions of illegal aliens.
Arpaio, represented by attorney Larry Klayman of FreedomWatch, wants a federal court in Washington, D.C., to issue an immediate preliminary injunction to halt the amnesty until a court can decide whether or not it is constitutional.
The timing is crucial, his complaint argues, because the government already is pouring resources into meeting the orders, and the offer of amnesty likely will draw a whole new flood of illegal aliens.
But Department of Justice attorneys Adam Kirschner and Brad Cohen argued to a federal court in Washington, D.C., that Christmas is coming, and they need a lot more time.
The attorneys are asking that they be allowed until the second half of January even to submit an initial response to Arpaio’s motion for a preliminary injunction, even though the administration has boasted it has thoroughly examined the legality of Obama’s immigration action.
“This timeline is also warranted because it will be particularly difficult to address the array of issues presented on a condensed schedule in light of the upcoming holidays,” the attorneys said.
Their statement was included in a filing submitted by Klayman. The original complaint seeks a permanent injunction against the immigration action. A filing last week requested a preliminary injunction to protect the nation while the case is in court.
The judge ordered the two sides to submit a timeline for the proceedings, but in Tuesday’s submission, Klayman said agreement was impossible.
“The parties have not reached agreement as to the timetable for briefing and hearing plaintiff’s’ motion for preliminary injunction,” he told the judge.
He noted that local court rules normally would have required a hearing already, but he was willing to have the defendants file their response by Dec. 15, and his followup then would be available to the court Dec. 22.
“Plaintiff’s position is buttressed by the fact that the defendants obviously have already extensively reviewed and analyzed their view of the law and precedents. On Nov. 20, 2014, the Office of Legal Counsel of the U.S. Department of Justice released its 33 page legal memorandum for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.”
Klayman told the judge the Obama administration officials “have not only evidenced but publicly boasted that they have extensively examined these issues legally.”
The submission argued that the White House “is merely delaying, much as it did before Judge Leon in the case against the National Security Agency” from 2013.
“In that case when the U.S. Department of Justice asked for an equally long and unreasonable briefing schedule on a motion for preliminary injunction, here is what Judge Leon had to say: ‘[w]e work 24/7 around this courthouse. I don’t want to hear anything about vacations, weddings, days off. Forget about it. This is a case at the pinnacle of public national interest, pinnacle. All hands 24/7. No excuses. You got a team of lawyers. Mr. Klayman is alone apparently. You have litigated cases in this courthouse when it is matters of this consequence and enormity. You know how this court operates,'” the submission explains.
It notes that even though Obama never signed a formal executive order on his immigration action, the impact is that programs and procedures are being changed already to meet his demands.
The president’s decision, Klayman wrote, “orders direct DHS personnel including the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and ICE to immediately suspend enforcement of immigration laws with regard to any who appear to be eligible for the new deferred action programs, even though such persons might not yet be able to apply for formal recognition.”
The instructions also tell law enforcement officials to “immediately” begin identifying those who could be given the special benefit.
Klayman also argued that the federal government already has leased office space and begun the process of hiring 1,000 new workers to process the illegals through Obama’s amnesty program.
All of those actions would be for nothing if a court rules that the program doesn’t meet the Constitution’s requirements, he wrote.
“By contrast if the implementation is simply delayed until a court decision, there will be no such harm,” he said.
Another injury would result from a new flood of illegals drawn by the promise of amnesty, he said.
“America witnessed the tragedy and the shock as thousands of ‘unaccompanied minors’ rushed across the nation’s southern border shared with Mexico in the summer of 2014. Some of these ‘unaccompanied minors’ were middle-aged men with gray hair claiming to be 17 years old without identity documents, some intact families but misreported among the news, but some children as young as four (4) years old. Young men and middle-aged men – lacking any documentation but claiming to be 17 years old – were placed in high schools next to 16 and 17 year old girls.”
The fallout has resulted in “an epidemic of Enterovirus D68 and most likely hepatitis,” he said.
“The Department of Homeland Security should be ordered to stop issuing any new DACA amnesty or work permits or renewing DACA status and Employment Authorization Cards until the court can analyze, review, and decide upon whether DACA status is legally valid and constitutional.”
The original lawsuit, filed only hours after Obama’s immigration announcement was made, names Obama and Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, Immigration Services chief Leon Rodriquez and Attorney General Eric Holder as defendants.
It seeks to avoid “irreversible harm” from Obama’s actions because they will “encourage[e] more illegal aliens to enter the country unlawfully.”
Arpaio, who has been consistently at odds with the Obama administration, released a statement at the time.
“This unconstitutional act by the president will have a serious detrimental impact on my carrying out the duties and responsibilities for which I am encharged as sheriff,” he said. “Specifically, it will severely strain our resources, both in manpower and financially, necessary to protect the citizens I was elected to serve. For instance, among the many negative [e]ffects of this executive order, will be the increased release of criminal aliens back onto streets of Maricopa County, Arizona, and the rest of the nation.”
He continued: “I am not seeking to myself enforce the immigration laws as this is the province of the federal government. Rather, I am seeking to have the president and the other defendants obey the U.S. Constitution, which prevents this executive order from having been issued in the first place. This unconstitutional act must be enjoined by a court of law on behalf of not just myself, but all of the American people.”
The request for the preliminary injunction explains: “Legislation and national policy are enacted by Congress, not by the president. In some limited cases, the Congress delegates quasi-legislative authority to the executive branch. However, the exercise of delegated authority requires compliance with a variety of restrictions and limitations.”
“The president cannot simply announce sweeping new rules and implement them by giving a speech,” the original complaint says.
It notes Obama, in 2013, said: “The problem is that, you know, I am the president of the United States. I am not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed. And Congress right now has not changed what I consider to be a broken immigration system. And what that means is that we have certain obligations to enforce the laws that are in place even if we think that in many cases the results may be tragic.”
