Read on Twitter
#DACA court argument is just now beginning.
Presiding judge Hanen begins by explaining why he denies counsel’s request to argue the case remotely and instead had counsel fly into TX from NJ and DC.
Playing armchair epidemiologist about COVID, honestly.
/1
Presiding judge Hanen begins by explaining why he denies counsel’s request to argue the case remotely and instead had counsel fly into TX from NJ and DC.
Playing armchair epidemiologist about COVID, honestly.
/1
Now explaining why he’s not wearing a mask for the indoor court hearing.
Not an auspicious beginning to the argument.
Not an auspicious beginning to the argument.
And there are people in the gallery watching the proceedings!
Texas, what in the what?!?
Texas, what in the what?!?
Hanen now encouraging all participants to use the term “illegal alien” throughout the argument, even though it’s not “politically correct in today’s popular parlance.”
Reader: it’s not actually a technical term of art.
Reader: it’s not actually a technical term of art.
Hanen begins with the motion on standing before returning to the states’ motion for summary judgment.
Nina Perales from @MALDEF kicks in on behalf of DACA intervenors.
Nina Perales from @MALDEF kicks in on behalf of DACA intervenors.
The issue here is whether the states have standing to challenge DACA and whether there’s any reason to accept as expert testimony the report of an economist who said DACA will have various labor market, economic effects necessary for the states’ claims of injury.
Similar challenge to the expert opinion of a demographer who admitted unfamiliarity with relevant details of immigration law & speculation about migration patterns of DACA recipients & other undocumented immigrants.
Hanen asks Texas whether immigration law would command the removal of all undocumented immigrants.
Years of litigation before Judge Hanen, beginning with DAPA and the expansion of DACA, and he continues to have no understanding that the government has prosecutorial discretion.
Years of litigation before Judge Hanen, beginning with DAPA and the expansion of DACA, and he continues to have no understanding that the government has prosecutorial discretion.
Great rejoinder by @MALDEF, pointing out that DACA recipients themselves are still removable. So DACA *itself* exemplifies & arises from the enforcement discretion of the government.
Also corrects Hanen that DACA is not a “lawful status”—another error he made preciously in DAPA.
Also corrects Hanen that DACA is not a “lawful status”—another error he made preciously in DAPA.
New Jersey speaking now, I think, on standing. Hard to hear tbh.
Hanen asks basically whether the government’s decision not to deport every removable person is a failure to faithfully execute the laws, a particularly weak aspect of the constitutional claim against DACA.
Hanen asks basically whether the government’s decision not to deport every removable person is a failure to faithfully execute the laws, a particularly weak aspect of the constitutional claim against DACA.
NJ responds that administration must prioritize and Hanen says if we accepted that must we not also consider costs that states would incur from the non-enforcement decision?
NJ says amount of cost is entirely speculative and no basis to assume people would leave or be removed.
NJ says amount of cost is entirely speculative and no basis to assume people would leave or be removed.
NJ correctly points out that DACA doesn’t as a factual matter affect whether someone is here or will remain here. Even without DACA, the federal government might deprioritize the removal of DACA recipients.
So ending DACA won’t address the costs key to purported standing.
So ending DACA won’t address the costs key to purported standing.
Hanen says NJ is making TX’s “take care” argument.
Familiar territory. He clearly has a deeply held and false belief that the INA & Constitution mandate the removal of every removable person and anything less is a failure to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.
Familiar territory. He clearly has a deeply held and false belief that the INA & Constitution mandate the removal of every removable person and anything less is a failure to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.
NJ talking about the SCOTUS decision in Regents this summer.
1) Strong evidence that ending DACA would be a net harm to the economies of states.
1) Strong evidence that ending DACA would be a net harm to the economies of states.
2) By reaffirming the strong legal basis for enforcement policies to forbear from removing people—distinct from granting benefits like work authorization—SCOTUS undermined the causal link needed for states’ standing argument. No reason to think ending DACA will lead to exodus.
Hanen grumbles about the idea that people won’t leave on the assumption that the law will be followed and l they will be removed.
Another instance of his firm belief that 100% deportation is the only legal outcome.
The Supreme Court said otherwise just a few months ago.
Another instance of his firm belief that 100% deportation is the only legal outcome.
The Supreme Court said otherwise just a few months ago.
Texas responds that standing is not an accounting injury, so even if the costs of ending DACA greatly outweigh the costs of keeping it, any injury is adequate.
Doesn’t go to causation or redressability as they’ve been debating for most of this argument.
Doesn’t go to causation or redressability as they’ve been debating for most of this argument.
Texas highlights for the court that DACA is back in full effect as it was when the memo was issued in 2012.
Good for Hanen to understand the stakes of this case.
300,000 people locked out of DACA as a result of the 2017 rescission are right now able to apply.
Good for Hanen to understand the stakes of this case.
300,000 people locked out of DACA as a result of the 2017 rescission are right now able to apply.
