The Justice Department filed an emergency motion Thursday asking a federal appeals court to allow President Barack Obama’s executive actions on immigration to go forward.
In their court brief, government lawyers charged that a lower court’s injunction — which froze the immigration moves nationwide — was “drastically overbroad.”
The Obama administration is already appealing a three-week-old Texas district court ruling blocking the immigration actions. But Justice officials don’t want to wait for the appeal to be resolved before being able to put the new policy into effect.
Since the ruling by U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen, millions of undocumented immigrants have been caught in legal limbo, unable to apply for two programs that were aimed at easing deportation threats. Texas is leading 25 other states in challenging the President on the issue.
Hanen’s ruling was narrow, holding that the administration had likely failed to comply with procedures governing how federal agencies can establish regulations.
Hanen’s order concerned the implementation of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA), which was set to begin later in the spring. It also affected the expansion of the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), a program that permits teenagers and young adults who were born outside the United States but raised in the country to apply for protection from deportation and for employment authorizations.
In Thursday’s brief, the administration argued that Hanen’s preliminary injunction “irreparably harms the government and the public interest by preventing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from marshaling its resources to protect border security, public safety and national security, while also addressing humanitarian interests.”
Last week, the administration had filed an emergency motion with Hanen asking the lower court to stay the order blocking the immigration actions pending appeal. But Hanen responded that he would not rule on the motion until at least March 19, after he’s held a hearing to resolve a dispute between the parties on a related issue.
“Evidently, the administration has decided not to wait,” said Ronald Levin, who teaches civil procedure at Washington University School of Law.
“Normally, the appeals court would defer to a district court’s management of the case, but in some circumstances they might override that judgment,” Levin said.
In the meantime, Washington State and 13 others have filed a brief in support of the government, arguing that their residents “should not have to live under an improper injunction based on harms other states incorrectly claim they will suffer.”
