Skip to content

Get Judicial Watch Updates!

DONATE

Judicial Watch • State of TX v USA 00254 opposition to amnesty amicus

State of TX v USA 00254 opposition to amnesty amicus

State of TX v USA 00254 opposition to amnesty amicus

Page 1: State of TX v USA 00254 opposition to amnesty amicus

Category:Lawsuit

Number of Pages:7

Date Created:February 25, 2015

Date Uploaded to the Library:February 26, 2015

Tags:00254, Herren, Justices, USA, Curiae, SCALIA, Mitchell, Opposition, Amicus, Amnesty, Plaintiffs, defendants, motion, DHS, filed, document, thomas, texas, Supreme Court, states, court, united


File Scanned for Malware

Donate now to keep these documents public!


See Generated Text   ∨

Autogenerated text from PDF

Case 1:14-cv-00254 Document 159 Filed TXSD 02/25/15 Page THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT TEXAS
BROWNSVILLE DIVISION
STATE TEXAS, al.,
Plaintiffs,
UNITED STATES AMERICA, al.,
Defendants.
Case Number: 1:14-cv-00254 (ASH)
MOTION FOR LEAVE FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OPPOSITION DEFENDANTS EMERGENCY EXPEDITED MOTION
Judicial Watch, Inc. Judicial Watch counsel, respectfully moves for leave file amicus curiae brief opposition Defendants Emergency Expedited Motion. Judicial
Watch states follows:
MEMORANDUM LAW
Judicial Watch not-for-profit, educational organization that seeks promote
transparency, integrity, and accountability government and fidelity the rule law. Judicial
Watch regularly monitors significant developments the court systems and the law, pursues
public interest litigation, and files amicus curiae briefs issues public concern. Judicial
Watch regularly files amicus curiae briefs means advance its public interest mission.
The Court has inherent authority permit the filing amicus briefs. See Gudur Deloitte Consulting LLP, 512 Supp. 920, 927 (S.D. Tex. 2007) The extent which the
court permits denies amicus briefing lies solely within the court discretion.
Case 1:14-cv-00254 Document 159 Filed TXSD 02/25/15 Page
Defendant request would destroy the status quo and, doing so, would
undermine the rule law. The Court has already ruled that preserving the status quo
important. should not waiver from that ruling.
U.S. Supreme Court Justices Thomas and Scalia recently admonished their
colleagues after the Court denied stay and failed preserve the status quo same sex
marriage case.
Judicial Watch proposed amicus curiae brief attached Exhibit this
motion. highlights the admonishment Justices Thomas and Scalia and demonstrates how applicable here. Judicial Watch filing this motion within the time period permitted the
Court for Plaintiffs file their opposition. Judicial Watch sought consent from the parties.
Defendants counsel informed Judicial Watch that Defendants take position. Judicial Watch
has not yet received response from Plaintiffs counsel.
WHEREFORE, Judicial Watch respectfully requests that the Court grant its motion for
leave file amicus curiae brief and accept for filing the amicus curiae brief attached
Exhibit
Dated: February 25, 2015
Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Mitchell Herren
Mitchell Herren, Bar 24052765
HINKLE LAW FIRM LLC
8621 East 21st Street North, Suite 200
Wichita, 67206-2991
Telephone:
(316) 267-2000
Facsimile:
(316) 630-8375
E-mail: mherren@hinklaw.com
Attorney for Judicial Watch, Inc.
-2-
Case 1:14-cv-00254 Document 159 Filed TXSD 02/25/15 Page
CERTIFICATE SERVICE hereby certify that this 25th day February, 2015, electronically filed the foregoing
with the Clerk the Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notice electronic
filing counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendants through the Electronic Case Filing System.
/s/ Mitchell Herren
-3-
Case 1:14-cv-00254 Document 159-1 Filed TXSD 02/25/15 Page THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT TEXAS
BROWNSVILLE DIVISION
STATE TEXAS, al.,
Plaintiffs,
UNITED STATES AMERICA, al.,
Defendants.
Case Number: 1:14-cv-00254 (ASH)
AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF JUDICIAL WATCH, INC.
Amicus Curiae Judicial Watch, Inc., counsel, respectfully submits this brief
opposition Defendants Emergency Expedited Motion. Judicial Watch states follows:
STATEMENT THE ISSUES
Whether this Court should stay its preliminary injunction and, doing so, destroy the
status quo.
SUMMARY THE ARGUMENT
This Court has already ruled that preserving the status quo important. should not
waiver from that ruling.
ARGUMENT
The Preliminary Injunction Preserved the Status Quo. its February 16, 2015 decision preliminarily enjoining the implementation the
Deferred Action for Parents American and Lawful Permanent Residents DAPA program,
the Court determined that was important preserve the status quo. Texas U.S., 2015 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 18551, **205-210 (S.D. Tx. Feb. 16, 2015). First, the Court concluded that even
with the preliminary injunction place, DHS may continue prosecute not prosecute
EXHIBIT
Case 1:14-cv-00254 Document 159-1 Filed TXSD 02/25/15 Page
illegally-present individuals, current laws dictate. This has been the status quo for least the
last five years. Id. Second, the Court found, the preliminary injunction denied, Plaintiffs
will bear the costs issuing licenses and other benefits once DAPA beneficiaries armed with
Social Security cards and employment authorization documents seek those benefits. Id.
Third, the Court noted that once DAPA beneficiaries received benefits and services from the
states, there effective way put[] the toothpaste back the tube should Plaintiffs
ultimately prevail the merits. Id. The Court has already ruled that preserving the status quo
important. should not waiver from that ruling.
II.
Preservation the Status Quo Great Importance When Benefits And Services
Are At-Issue.
Defendants argument that grants deferred action can revoked any time and can
readily reversed misses the forest for the trees. this Court found, DAPA beneficiary does
not only receive promise that will not deported but also receives the opportunity apply
for numerous benefits and services, such the authority work and driver licenses.
Because granting Defendants emergency, expedited motion would allow millions
individuals begin applying for benefits and services they otherwise would not able
receive, the recent admonition U.S. Supreme Court Justices Thomas and Scalia after the
Court denied stay that failed preserve the status quo pertinent. Strange Searcy, the
Supreme Court denied stay federal injunction preventing the Attorney General Alabama
from enforcing several provisions Alabama law defining marriage legal union one man
and one woman pending review the Court. The Court ultimately denied the stay, requiring
Alabama begin issuing marriage licenses for same-sex unions. result, individuals
undoubtedly have begun receiving licenses, benefits, and services that they otherwise would not eligible receive. Alabama succeed the merits, will required void
-2-
Case 1:14-cv-00254 Document 159-1 Filed TXSD 02/25/15 Page
marriages and retract all benefits and services provided result the marriages. objecting the denial the stay, Justices Thomas and Scalia wrote:
The [Supreme] Court look[ed] the other way yet another Federal District Judge
casts aside state laws without making any effort preserve the status quo
pending the Court resolution constitutional question This acquiescence
may well seen signal the Court intended resolution that question.
This not the proper way discharge our Article III responsibilities. And,
indecorous for this Court pretend that is.
574 U.S. __, 2015 U.S. LEXIS 912, **3-4 (Feb. 2015) (Thomas, J., dissenting).
This Court should reaffirm the importance preserving the status quo until final
resolution the merits reached. See Veasey Perry, 769 F.3d 890, 892 (5th Cir. 2014)
stay pending appeal simply suspends judicial alteration the status quo. (quoting Nken
Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 429 (2009)); see also Dayton Board Education Brinkman, 439 U.S.
1358, 1359 (1978) [T]he maintenance the status quo important consideration
granting stay. Houchins KQED, Inc., 429 U.S. 1341, 1346 (1977) [T]he preservation
that status quo important factor favoring stay. the Court were grant Defendants
motion, would cast aside immigration laws passed Congress and signed the President.
These laws have been place for almost years. seeking stay, Defendants fail
demonstrate why destroying years status quo and undermining duly enacted laws
necessary this immediate date. None the reasons cited Defendants their motion
answer the question: why today? The Court should not discharge its Article III responsibilities acquiescing the unsubstantiated pleas Defendants. should deny the motion.
-3-
Case 1:14-cv-00254 Document 159-1 Filed TXSD 02/25/15 Page
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants Emergency Expedited Motion should denied.
Dated: February 25, 2015
Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Mitchell Herren
Mitchell Herren, Bar 24052765
HINKLE LAW FIRM LLC
8621 East 21st Street North, Suite 200
Wichita, 67206-2991
Telephone: 316-267-2000
Facsimile: 316-630-8375
E-mail: mherren@hinklaw.com
Attorney for Judicial Watch, Inc.
-4-