Federal Court Deals Blow To President Asshat’s Executive Amnesty Scheme

Federal Appeals Court Deals Blow To President Obama’s Amnesty – Washington Times

.

.
A federal appeals court upheld an injunction against President Obama’s new deportation in a ruling Tuesday that marks the second major legal setback for an administration that had insisted its actions were legal.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of Texas, which had sued to stop the amnesty, on all key points, finding that Mr. Obama’s amnesty likely broke the law governing how big policies are to be written.

“The public interest favors maintenance of the injunction,” the judges wrote in the majority opinion.

Mr. Obama had acted in November to try to grant tentative legal status and work permits to as many as 5 million illegal immigrants, saying he was tired of waiting for Congress to act.

The full amnesty, known as Deferred Action for Parental Accountability, or DAPA, had been scheduled to begin last week, while an earlier part had been slated to accept applications on Feb. 18. But just two days before that, Judge Andrew S. Hanen issued his injunction finding that Mr. Obama had broken the law.

Administration officials had criticized that ruling, and immigrant-rights advocates had called Judge Hanen an activist bent on punishing immigrants. But Tuesday’s ruling upholds his injunction, giving some vindication to the judge.

It also could mean Mr. Obama will have to appeal to the Supreme Court if he wants to implement his amnesty before the end of his term.

In the 2-1 decision, Judge Jerry E. Smith and Jennifer Elrod ruled in favor of Texas, finding that the state would suffer an injury from having to deliver services to the illegal immigrants granted legal status, and ruling that it was a major enough policy that the president should have sent it through the usual rule-making process.

“DAPA modifies substantive rights and interests – conferring lawful presence on 500,000 illegal aliens in Texas forces the state to choose between spending millions of dollars to subsidize driver’s licenses and changing its law,” the judges wrote.

Judge Stephen A. Higginson dissented from Tuesday’s ruling, saying he would have left the fight over immigration policy to the White House and Congress, saying Mr. Obama should have broad discretion to decide who gets deported and how he goes about that.

Just Higginson also said the fight was a political battle, not a legal one

“The political nature of this dispute is clear from the names on the briefs: hundreds of mayors, police chiefs, sheriffs, attorneys general, governors, and state legislators – not to mention 185 members of Congress, 15 states and the District of Columbia on the one hand, and 113 members of Congress and 26 states on the other,” he wrote.

.

.

Leftist Anti-Gun Nazis Smacked Down In Federal Court Over DC’s Concealed Carry Permit Restrictions

Federal Judge Smacks Down D.C. Gun Permit Requirement – Daily Caller

.

.
U.S. District Judge Frederick J. Scullin Jr. placed a hold on Washington D.C.’s mandate that firearm owners must have a “good reason” to get a concealed carry permit in the District. The judge said the requirement took away citizens’ Second Amendment rights.

Judge Scullin granted a preliminary injunction as a result of a lawsuit brought forth by three gun owners who sought to overturn the bureaucratic D.C. gun law claiming the regulations surrounding it make it impossible for the majority of law abiding individuals to qualify for a D.C. firearms permit.

“For all intents and purposes, this requirement makes it impossible for the overwhelming majority of law-abiding citizens to obtain licenses to carry handguns in public for self-defense, thereby depriving them of their Second Amendment right to bear arms,” Judge Scullin wrote within his 23 page opinion.

Local lawmakers created the D.C. gun permitting process after Scullin ruled the District’s long-time ban on carrying firearms in public was unconstitutional last year. The process was intended to set up a process for residents and non-residents alike to apply for concealed carry permits.

Prior the passage of the law for gun permits, law-abiding citizens with permits from other states were allowed to carry in D.C. for a period time before the District took legal action to end the brief carry period.

.

.

Email-gate Update: Federal Judge Reopens Case Against Hitlery

Federal Judge Makes Massive Ruling Against Hillary Clinton – Conservative Tribune

.

.
One of the more controversial scandals dogging likely Democrat presidential nominee Hillary Clinton has been her use of a private email account on a private server to conduct official public business during her tenure at the State Department.

Government watchdog group Judicial Watch had previously sued to gain access to Hillary’s emails, which they claimed should be public record, but Hillary has kept them hidden and a court had tossed out the original lawsuit.

However, federal Judge Reggie Walton has agreed to reopen the lawsuit after Judicial Watch and the State Department reached an agreement stating that Hillary Clinton should have turned over all of the documents she held on her private email server.

It should be remembered that Hillary has claimed to have turned over to the State Department only about half of the emails on her private server, deleting more than 30,000 others she determined on her own to be “private” in nature.

According to Fox News, Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton said, “This is the first case that’s been reopened. It’s a significant development. It points to the fraud by this administration and Mrs. Clinton.”

This decision could ultimately result in Hillary being ordered to turn over the server to an independent third party that could objectively sort through whatever traces remained on it.

There are many who suspect Hillary’s private email server contained evidence related to the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, as well as of her involvement in a “pay-to-play” scheme that involved the trading of political favors for major donations to the Clinton Foundation.

Thanks to this federal judge, America may finally find out just what Hillary has been hiding on that private server.

Please share this on Facebook and Twitter if you are glad this judge decided to reopen the lawsuit demanding access to all of Hillary’s emails, not just the ones she decided to turn over herself.

.

.

Thanks Barack… Federal Regulation Cost American Businesses And Consumers $1.88 Trillion In 2014

Report: Cost Of Federal Regulation Reached $1.88 Trillion In 2014 – Washington Free Beacon

.

.
The cost of federal regulation neared $2 trillion in 2014, according to a new report by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI).

Ten Thousand Commandments: An Annual Snapshot of the Federal Regulatory State, a report by Clyde Wayne Crews, CEI’s vice president for policy, also reveals that the U.S. debt now exceeds the size of China’s economy.

“Federal regulation and intervention cost American consumers and businesses an estimated $1.88 trillion in 2014 in lost economic productivity and higher prices,” amounting to roughly $15,000 per household, the report said.

The report found that the federal bureaucracy – made up of 60 agencies, departments, and commissions – has 3,415 regulations in the process of being finalized, meaning that the number of regulations far surpasses the number of laws passed by Congress.

“In 2014, agencies issued 16 new regulations for every law – that’s 3,554 new regulations compared to 224 new laws,” the report said.

CEI, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, found that the Departments of the Treasury, Commerce, Interior, Health and Human Services (HHS), Transportation (DOT), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) account for 48 percent of all federal regulations.

The EPA issued 539 final rules in the Federal Register last year, up 12.5 percent in five years.

Enforcing regulations alone cost the government $59.5 billion in 2014.

Government regulation has led to a hidden “tax” for Americans, the report said, as businesses pass along compliance costs to consumers.

“Economy-wide regulatory costs amount to an average of $14,976 per household – around 29 percent of an average family budget of $51,100,” the report said. “Although not paid directly by individuals, this ‘cost’ of regulation exceeds the amount an average family spends on health care, food and transportation.”

Aside from passing costs onto consumers, the report said, regulation is a way for the federal government to further agendas without relying on the legislative system.

“Rather than pay directly and book expenses for new initiatives, federal regulations can compel the private sector, as well as state and local governments, to bear the costs of federal initiatives,” the report said.

Regulations hit small businesses the hardest, averaging $11,724 per employee for firms that employ fewer than 50 people in 2012. The overall cost per employee for all companies comes to $9,991.

The cost of regulation has grown so large, according to the report, that if it was a country “it would be the world’s 10th largest economy, ranking behind Russia and ahead of India.”

The regulatory state has been growing for decades. The report notes that 90,836 rules have been issued since 1993.

The Federal Register, the government’s official record for all federal regulations, was
77,687 pages long at the end of 2014, the sixth-highest page count in history.

“Among the six all-time-high Federal Register page counts, five have occurred under President Obama,” CEI said.

The report also noted that the national debt, which currently stands at $18.152 trillion, is now larger than China’s economy. China surpassed the U.S. to become the largest economy in the world last December.

“The national debt topped $18 trillion in December 2014,
the same month the International Monetary Fund calculated China’s economy to
be worth $17.6 trillion in terms of purchasing power parity, making it the world’s largest economy (albeit still significantly lagging the United States on a per capita basis),” CEI said.

.

.

Regime Lawyers Finally Admit Obama Violated Federal Injunction By Approving 2,000 Amnesty Applications

Obama Administration Violates Federal Court Order, Approves 2,000 More Amnesty Applications Despite Injunction – Liberty News

.

.
The Obama Administration has defied Federal Judge Andrew S. Hanen’s injunction once again, this time approving an additional 2,000 amnesty applications for work permits.

Thursday, Obama’s lawyers admitted to Judge Hanen just before midnight that the Department of Homeland Security had violated the injunction by approving the applications despite the fact Hanen admonished the administration two months ago for failing to comply with his ruling.

This latest development comes as DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson continue attempting to reassure Congress that Obama’s amnesty program has halted and that the administration is in full compliance with the court order.

Obama’s lawyers stated to Judge Hanen that “The government sincerely regrets these circumstances” and they are taking immediate steps to remedy the situation.

Via WT

“The last time I checked, injunctions are not mere suggestions. They are not optional,” the Iowa Republican said. “This disregard for the court’s action is unacceptable and disturbing, especially after Secretary Johnson’s assurances that his agency would honor the injunction.”

The Justice Department didn’t respond to a request for comment Friday, but Homeland Security officials said Mr. Johnson has asked his department’s inspector general to investigate what went wrong.

Judge Hanen had already been pondering whether to sanction the Justice Department lawyers after they admitted to misleading him – they said inadvertently – on more than 100,000 amnesty applications approved between the Nov. 20 date Mr. Obama announced the new program and the Feb. 16 date the judge issued his injunction.

Thursday’s filing, however, appears to be worse, since it breaks a direct injunction…

The lawyers also had to correct a previous number they’d given the court, when they’d said just 55 applications had been approved in the immediate aftermath of the injunction. The actual number, the lawyers admitted, was 72. They blamed “additional errors.”

Judge Hanen said he was surprised that the three-year applications were being approved, since he thought the administration had told him none of the new program was in effect. Justice Department lawyers said they hadn’t mean to mislead him, and had included in their briefing papers documents showing that the three-year approvals were to take effect last November – but apologized nonetheless for leaving the wrong impression.

What a complete and total crock…

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related article:

.
Texas Governor Goes After Obama Admin. For Acting ‘Outside The Law’ In Defying Judge’s Immigration Order – The Blaze

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott blasted the Obama administration Friday after Justice Department attorneys admitted the administration violated a federal court order by granting about 2,000 extended work permits to illegal immigrants.

“After months of obfuscation and stall tactics by the Obama administration, the president’s lawyers, have been forced to admit that they acted outside the law by implementing president’s executive amnesty – even after a federal judge had ordered them to stop,” Abbott said in a statement.

Texas is leading a multi-state lawsuit to stop President Barack Obama’s executive actions from November to shield about five million illegal immigrants from deportation. In February, U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen issued an injunction to halt much of the order.

But late Thursday, Justice Department attorneys admitted to Judge Hanen that the Department of Homeland Security had approved about 2,000 applications for three-year work permits.

“The government sincerely regrets these circumstances and is taking immediate steps to remedy these erroneous three-year terms,” the administration lawyers said.

However Abbott sees the admission as part of a pattern.

“Not only did President Obama’s executive action violate the U.S. Constitution; his lawyers’ actions show a blatant disregard for the rule of law that has become typical of this administration and directly violates one of the fundamental principles upon which our nation was founded,” Abbott continued.

.

.

Republican Governor Of Tennessee Signs Bill Prohibiting State Cooperation With Federal Gun Control Laws

TN Gov. Signs Bill Prohibiting State Cooperation with Fed Gun Control Laws – Big Government

.

.
On April 30, Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam (R) signed Senate Bill 1110 – a bill which bars state cooperation with federal gun control laws.

Sponsored by Senator Richard Briggs (R-Dist. 7), SB 1110 “prohibits the use of any public funds, personnel, or property to enforce any federal law or regulation that regulates the ownership, use, or possession of firearms, ammunition, or firearms accessories.”

SB 1110 passed the house by a margin of 74 to 20 and the senate by a margin of 24 to 1.

According to the Tenth Amendment Center, the measure was “originally introduced in the House as HB1341 by Rep. Terri Lynn Weaver.” At that time, Weaver said, “I’m from the cut that there is no need for Washington D.C. to be the end all and be all with regards to the regulatory world. We should respect our 10th Amendment and shift the power back to the states and that’s what House Bill 1341 does.”

What was true for HB 1341 is also true for SB 1110.

This law comes on the heels of another blow to federal gun control signed by Indiana Governor Mike Pence (R) last week. On April 29, Pence signed Senate Bill 433 – a bill that “repeals the prohibition against manufacturing, importing, selling, or possessing a sawed-off shotgun.”

SB 433 addresses the ban on short barreled, modified shotguns and will also present a challenge to the federal government’s “title II firearm” policy requiring registration fees and transfer records each time the firearm changes hands.

.

.

Federal Judge Slaps Down Obama Regime’s Request To Let Executive Amnesty Move Forward

Federal Court Slaps Down Request To Let Obama’s Amnesty Move Forward – Daily Caller

.

.
A federal judge denied Tuesday night the Obama administration’s request to allow President Obama’s executive actions on amnesty to move forward.

The Southern District Court of Texas is hearing a lawsuit from 26 states against the Department of Homeland Security over the executive actions President Obama announced in November he would be taking to extend legal status and work permits to 5 million illegal immigrants. Judge Andrew Hanen stayed Obama’s immigration plans in February – and soon after discovered that the Justice Department had misled the court about the details of the plan.

Tuesday night, Hanen denied the Justice Department’s March request to stay his injunction against the plan, meaning the latest amnesty will not move forward for now.

That’s not all. Hanen’s ruling ordered the DOJ to produce all documents and metadata regarding what the department knew about the amnesty plan, and when, in response to the department’s flub with the court.

Part of President Obama’s current amnesty plan, Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA), would provide amnesty for about 4 million illegal immigrants who are parents. Another section would upgrade Obama’s 2012 immigration program, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), by extending the period illegal immigrants would be exempt from deportation from two to three years.

While DOJ reported to the court that the DACA upgrade would not go into effect until Feb. 18 – two days after Hanen issued a temporary injunction against it – the administration belatedly admitted in March that it had already issued the extended amnesty to 100,000 illegal immigrants.

“Due to the seriousness of the matters discussed therein, the Court will not rule on any other pending motions until it is clear that these matters, if true, do not impact the pending matters or any rulings previously made by this Court,” Hanen wrote of DOJ’s admission that it had moved forward with the program anyway.

DOJ nevertheless filed a motion days later asking the court to lift its injunction, because the freeze purportedly interferes with DHS’ “effort to effectively allocate limited enforcement resources.”

The court ruled that the administration’s actions “were indeed misleading.” Hanen denied the plaintiffs’ request to strike the government’s pleadings entirely, but left the door open to future repercussions, saying the court “may impose some other sanction in response to the misrepresentations made to the Court.”

Now the administration has until Apr. 21 to comply with the court order for information.

“At a minimum, however, Defendants have created special circumstances that necessitate further investigation,” Hanen wrote in the order. The ruling requires that DOJ hand over the documentation of all drafts and metadata regarding editing of the March advisory which misled the court on DAPA’s content – and specified that the agency cannot “destroy” or “erase” any data, just in case.

.

.