“The best love is the kind that awakens the soul; that makes us reach for more, that plants the fire in our hearts and brings peace to our minds. That’s what I hope to give you forever.”
— The Notebook
Daily Archives: 02/20/2015
Here Come The Nativists
Bush-Appointed Judge, Hand-Picked By Anti-Immigrant Activists, Rules Against President Obama’s Immigration Actions
Late last night, Judge Andrew Hanen of the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Texas temporarily blocked the Department of Homeland Security from implementing President Obama’s deferred action immigration directives. The ruling did not come as a surprise to most observers; Hanen has a history of extremist anti-immigrant decisions.
The bad news is that the judge’s deeply flawed ruling will delay implementation of common-sense measures designed to focus limited enforcement resources on felons, not families (bear in mind this does not affect the existing DACA). The good news, however, is that the decision is only a temporary setback; the judicial process will move beyond Judge Hanen to higher courts. And with extensive jurisprudence pointing toward the fact that the President has the legal authority to act, we are confident that his directives will be deemed constitutional and will be fully implemented.
Here are three key points to know and remember in this case:
1. This is a partisan political attack disguised as a lawsuit. In December, governors and attorneys general from 26 states sued the government to block the DHS directives from going in to effect. Every single governor that signed onto the lawsuit, and all but one of the attorneys general, were Republicans.
What’s more, it is no accident that Judge Haren was the judge selected to rule on the lawsuit. The plaintiffs, led by now-Governor Greg Abbott (R-TX), shopped around for a judge they knew to be sympathetic to their anti-immigrant cause.
2. Judge Hanen’s ruling is not the final decision in the case. The Department of Justice will immediately appeal the judge’s decision and apply for a stay of the ruling to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. At this point, that can go in two possible directions.
- The 5th Circuit grants the requested stay, and implementation of the directives will continue while the court considers the merits of the plaintiffs’ case.
- The 5th Circuit denies the stay request and the temporary injunction remains in effect, further delaying the implementation of the DACA expansion and DAPA programs.
In either situation, a decision on the requested stay should take place within a couple of weeks, while the ruling on the underlying legality of the directives will likely take several months. In the meantime, immigrants who would have been eligible to request deferred action under these directives will not be agency enforcement priorities and should not be removed.
3. We are confident that President Obama’s directives are legal, and that they will proceed. Lawsuits against similar executive action have failed in the past, including a 2012 Mississippi challenge of the DACA program, and an effort by an anti-immigrant Sheriff challenging executive action that was struck down in court in December of last year. More than 130 legal scholars from across the political spectrum wrote a letter to the president urging him to take executive action, and laying out the broad legal authority for taking executive action on immigration. These scholars reaffirmed the legality of the DHS directives after they were announced in late-November.
BOTTOM LINE: Last night’s anti-immigrant ruling by an anti-immigrant federal judge in southern Texas is temporary and an aberration. This judge’s ruling is just another piece of a cynical, partisan strategy to break families apart and oppose the President’s policies at all costs. Legal precedent from Supreme Court rulings and similar lawsuits in the past — not to mention the views of more than one hundred legal experts — demonstrates that ultimately, President Obama’s immigration action and the directives from the Department of Homeland Security will be upheld as constitutional.
Share this:
Marty & Beyoncé – SNL 40th Anniversary Special
Raising The Stakes
Another Successful Open Enrollment Period Ends, Raising The Stakes For King v. Burwell
Sunday marked the end of the Affordable Care Act’s second open enrollment period, and it was a success.
More than 11.4 million people signed up for insurance through the marketplace. More people will sign up in the next few days, as the enrollment period has been extended through this weekend for people who started their applications, but were unable to complete them.
Of the 11.4 million people enrolled, more than 8.6 million signed up through federally-facilitated exchanges and around 6.5 million qualified for tax credits, making their health coverage more affordable. In addition to this good news, last week we shared a few other highlights from the 2015 enrollment period, including the fact that nearly 80 percent of people had the option of choosing a plan with a monthly premium of $100 or less.
Celebrations of the successful enrollment period have been subdued, however, for one big reason: the looming threat of the Supreme Court case King v. Burwell. The case, as we’ve explained before, threatens to take tax credits away from the millions enrolled in the federal exchange, cripple the Affordable Care Act, and send the entire health care industry into chaos.
This case is about more than statistics and more than politics. The millions of Americans who could lose tax credits and the peace of mind of health insurance are real people — who are now threatened by a decision in the hands of just nine Supreme Court justices. That is why the Center for American Progress has launched a website, HearTheNine.org, contrasting these nine justices with the stories of nine Americans whose access to health care depends on the Supreme Court’s decision.
Six of these individuals have been featured in the past two weeks, and today, the campaign tells the final three stories:
- Rachel is a small business owner and new mom from North Carolina who previously had limited insurance, but couldn’t afford a health plan that covered the maternity care she needed. Even a plan that covered her alone and included maternity care would have cost $600 per month. Now, thanks to the ACA, she is able to afford healthcare for herself, her husband, and her baby for just $10 per month.
- Lisa is a retail professional from Nebraska who lost her job and her insurance because of the recession and went without coverage for more than 6 years. Now she has enrolled in coverage on the exchange that has a monthly premium of $33 per month.
- Vaughn wanted to take his dream job at a small PR firm in Atlanta, but it didn’t offer health care coverage. Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, he was able to find affordable coverage with financial assistance and take the job.
In addition to these nine powerful stories featured online, today CAP also released a video explaining the stakes of King v. Burwell and telling the story of Jennifer, a Tennessee woman for whom coverage under the Affordable Care Act could mean the difference between life and death.
BOTTOM LINE: The successful end to the second open enrollment period for health care only raises the stakes of King v. Burwell. Now, because of ideologically-charged conservatives who continue to try to dismantle President Obama’s landmark legislation, nine Supreme Court justices hold the fate of nearly nine million Americans’ health insurance in their hands. Visit HearTheNine.org to learn more about the case and the stories of real people who could be affected.
Be a Seed for Change 
You must be logged in to post a comment.