President Barack Obama’s plan to protect from deportation an estimated 5 million people living in the United States illegally has suffered another setback in a ruling from a New Orleans-based federal appeals court.
In a 2-1 ruling, the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Texas-based federal judge’s injunction blocking the administration’s immigration initiative.
Republicans had criticized the plan as an illegal executive overreach when Obama announced it last November. Twenty-six states challenged the plan in court.
The administration argued that the executive branch was within its rights in deciding to defer deportation of selected groups of immigrants, including children who were brought to the US illegally.
Texas Govrnor Greg Abbott, a Republican, praised the ruling.
“President Obama should abandon his lawless executive amnesty program and start enforcing the law today,” Abbott said in a news release.
The ruling further dims prospects of implementation of the executive action before Obama leaves office in 2017. Appeals over the injunction could take months and, depending on how the case unfolds, it could go back to the Texas federal court for more proceedings.
The administration could ask for a re-hearing by the full 5th Circuit but the National Immigration Law Center, an advocacy group, urged an immediate Supreme Court appeal.
“The most directly impacted are the 5 million US citizen children whose parents would be eligible for temporary relief from deportation,” Marielena Hincapie, executive director of the organization, said in a news release.
Part of the initiative included expansion of a program called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, protecting young immigrants from deportation if they were brought to the US illegally as children.
The other major part, Deferred Action for Parents of Americans, would extend deportation protections to parents of US citizens and permanent residents who have been in the country for years.
The 70-page majority opinion by Judge Jerry Smith, joined by Jennifer Walker Elrod, rejected administration arguments that the district judge abused his discretion with a nationwide order and that the states lacked standing to challenge Obama’s executive orders.
They acknowledged an argument that an adverse ruling would discourage potential beneficiaries of the plan from cooperating with law enforcement authorities or paying taxes.
“But those are burdens that Congress knowingly created, and it is not our place to second-guess those decisions,” Smith wrote.