UPDATED, @ 5 PM EST: See this email chain, just filed by DoJ, per Judge Tipton's order of this morning. Read it in chron order. You will see that involved "higher up" DHS and ICE officials immediately countermanded a woefully-errant (malevolent officer's?) misreading of Mr. Biden's Friday directives. Tucker Carlson intentionally misrepresented the gravamen of this email chain. No surprise. But for the Governor of Texas, and the AG, to make an emergency Sunday filing based on a Tucker Carlson rumor piece. . . is well-nigh. . . unprofessional. Then to double down on it, when the DoJ said in court "that's not what the emails say". . . borders on misconduct.
But now you know. End update.
Unsurprisingly, Texas lost its hearing this morning -- whole hog. No TRO.
USDC Judge Tipton is taking the matter back under advisement, after learning (unsurprisingly) that the Texas Sunday claims are based on lies, from Trucker Carlson, and no one else.
Here is the more comprehensive 23 page Biden Administration response -- and a bit that conclusively establishes that the claims of Texas Gov. Abbott, and AG Paxson are. . . DOA:
. . .Texas asserts that DHS contracted away the sovereign’s right to decide federal immigration policy by imposing a 180-day stay on federal action, pending Texas’s response to that action. Such a promise to abstain from taking a wide range of immigration-related actions until a State has exercised a 180-day comment power lies beyond the power of contract. The federal government has plenary power over the enforcement of federal immigration law and an outgoing administration cannot contract away that power for an incoming administration. See Biodiversity Assocs. v. Cables, 357 F.3d 1152, 1172 (10th Cir. 2004) (“The executive branch does not have authority to contract away the enumerated constitutional powers of Congress or its own successors. . . .”); see also United States Trust Co. v. New Jersey, 431 U.S. 1, 23 (1977) (“[T]he Contract Clause does not require a State to adhere to a contract that surrenders an essential attribute of its sovereignty”); Stone v. Mississippi, 101 U.S. 814, 817 (1880) (“[T]he legislature cannot bargain away the police power of a State.”). . . .
Further, Texas fails to identify any permissible statutory authority that contemplates DHS entering into a contract to grant states the power to delay and review agency policy decisions, and for good reason. It runs afoul of the non-delegation doctrine. U.S. Telecom Ass’n v. F.C.C., 359 F.3d 554, 565 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (“subdelegations to outside parties are assumed to be improper absent an affirmative showing of congressional authorization’). Indeed, all applicable statutes preserve federal prerogatives. For example, the Homeland Security Act vests the Secretary with responsibility for all functions of the Department, and provides that she may delegate those functions only to “any officer, employee, or organizational unit of the Department.” 6 U.S.C. § 112(b)(1). Delegations of functions to Texas, to include the power to delay DHS policies related to enforcement of federal immigration law, as the purported contract appears to provide by vesting Texas with a 180-day period to comment before an agency decision takes effect, violate this statutory limitation. The INA sets forth numerous provisions governing federal-state relations with respect to the immigration laws, see, e.g., 8 U.S.C. §§ 1103(a)(10), 1257(g), but none contemplates such extraordinary MOUs. Had Congress intended to authorize such extraordinary agreements, it certainly would have done so expressly with unmistakable clarity. See, e.g., Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass’ns, 531 U.S. 457, 468 (2001). The MOU is therefore unauthorized by statute. . . .
This is not even remotely. . . funny. But I am unbothered, since all it is doing is wasting court time down in Texas -- and making Abbott a laughing-stock of the competent State Governors' associations. Cheers, bub, you are. . . 21 flavors -- check that -- all kinds. . . of stupid.
नमस्ते
1 comment:
Now, a few hours later, Judge Tipton has asked for a bolus of government documents, none of which will change the fact that Texas lacks standing to file this specious suit. But for what it is worth, the judge will have a record of what it is the government has averred to be true -- all of which refutes irresponsible rumors (repeated in official filed litigation documents, by Texas officials) broadcast as EDITORIAL OPINIONS, by Tucker Carlson on Fox:
". . .Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Drew B Tipton.
ZOOM HEARING held on 1/25/2021. Regarding Advisory (Dkt. 6).
The Court instructs Defense Counsel to submit a copy of the email referenced in the Advisory (Dkt. 6) and to preserve any evidence, emails, texts, instant messages or any other communication from January 22, 2021 forward related to the release of individuals in custody that were subject to an Order of Removal.
Defense Counsel is further instructed to verify and advise the Court whether the only individuals in custody that were subject to an Order of Removal that have been released since January 22, 2021 were pursuant to the California litigation referenced in (Dkt. 9).
Defense Counsel is further instructed to advise the Court of the number of individuals in custody that were subject to an Order of Removal who have been released from custody in the United States since Friday January 22, 2021 and the locations from which they were released.
Appearances: Adam Kirschner. William Thomas Thompson, Patrick K Sweeten, Daniel David Hu. . . ."
Post a Comment