ImmigrationDHS asks judge to cancel contempt hearing over immigration executive order

Published 3 August 2015

When President Barack Obama last year issued his Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) executive order, applicants covered by the order received a three-year work permit, or EADs (Employment Authorization Documents). On 16 February 2015, Brownsville, Texas-based U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen temporarily blocked Obama’s immigration action. After the temporary injunction was in place, the federal government mistakenly issued the approximately 2,500 three-year permits. On Friday, DHS secretary Jeh Johnson asked Judge Hanen not to find him and other Obama administration officials in contempt, telling the judge that DHS had recovered all but 22 of the 2,500 offending permits. Johnson also advised the judge that DHS had corrected federal computer databases to invalidate those permits not turned over by their owners.

When President Barack Obama last year issued his Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) executive order, applicants covered by the order received a three-year work permit, or EADs (Employment Authorization Documents). On 16 February 2015, Brownsville, Texas-based U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen temporarily blocked Obama’s immigration action. After the temporary injunction was in place, the federal government mistakenly issued the approximately 2,500 three-year permits. The government has called on those who received the three-year work permit after 16 February to swap them for two-year permits(see “DHS begins collecting invalid work permits mistakenly issued after a judge’s injunction,” HSNW, 21 July 2015).

On Friday, DHS secretary Jeh Johnson asked Judge Hanen not to find him and other Obama administration officials in contempt, telling the judge that DHS had recovered all but 22 of the 2,500 offending permits. Johnson also advised the judge that DHS had corrected federal computer databases to invalidate those permits not turned over by their owners.

In papers filed late Friday in federal court in Brownsville, Texas, DHS lawyers said the effort proves that Johnson and other top immigration officials have been compliant with the judge’s February ruling, and that there was thus no need to hold a contempt hearing set for later this month.

Bloomberg reports that twenty-six states sued the Obama administration over the immigration executive orders, and Judge Hanen has repeatedly chastised White House lawyers and immigration officials for he described as their “cavalier attitude” about violating his order, accusing them of dragging their feet.

Obama’s executive order may cover as many as five million undocumented immigrants, and would provide those who qualify with three-year work permits.

In February, Hanen blocked the program, finding the administration side-stepped required rule-making procedures before putting its plan into effect. He put off until trial consideration of the other claim made by the twenty-six states, that Obama overstepped his constitutional authority.

The administration, arguing it has the authority to set priorities over the use of immigration resources however it sees fit without the approval of Congress or the courts, appealed Hanen’s temporary injunction in an effort to start the program before the end of Obama’s second term. The U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans heard arguments on overturning Hanen’s order 10 July, but has not yet ruled on the appeal.

The twenty-six complaining states argued that the executive order, by giving work permits to undocumented immigrants, would make these immigrants entitled to a host of benefits, such as Social Security and Medicare. The twenty-six complaining states also argue that they will be required to provide hundreds of millions of dollars in services such as education and health that they would not be able to recover if the president’s executive order is later declared illegal and cancelled.

Bloomberg notes that fifteen states have sided with the administration on the issue of the executive orders, saying they will gain more in increased tax revenues from fully-employed immigrants than they would spend on services to these immigrants.