On the same day that federal Judge Andrew Hanen refused to lift the block on immigration executive actions, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of DACA in another lawsuit.
In a unanimous decision, a three-judge panel dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Mississippi state government and 10 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents attacking the legality of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.
The plaintiffs claimed that the implementation of DACA is detrimental to Mississippi because allowing more aliens to stay imposes an economic burden on the state.
For their part, the 10 ICE agents claimed that the program did not allow them to do their jobs, causing them to violate their oaths to uphold U.S. laws by ordering them that they could not detain certain types of undocumented immigrants, forcing them to prioritize people with criminal records. They also claimed that they would receive employment sanctions if they did not implement DACA.
The judges ruled that neither the agents "nor Mississippi nor the agents proved a sufficiently concrete injury" to sustain the claim.
It is important to note that of the 3 judges, 2 were appointed to their positions by Republican presidents and one by a Democrat.
The judges who evaluated the case are W. Eugene Davisappointed by President Ronald Reagan; Priscilla R. Owenappointed by President G.W. Bush. Bush and Carolyn Dineen Kingappointed to the court by President Jimmy Carter.
They all came to the same conclusion: the plaintiffs did not have a valid case.
The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuitis generally regarded as the most conservative federal appellate court in the country.
Friday, April 17, 2015 is the date set for the Court of Appeals to hear oral arguments in the 26-state lawsuit challenging the expansion of DACA and the implementation of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans or Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) program.
Several legal experts believe that the ruling in the Mississippi and ICE agents case sets a precedent that could lead to a favorable ruling that would allow for the implementation of DAPA and the expansion of DACA.
But the two cases are very different. The 26 states' lawsuit asserts that implementation of the immigration Executive Action would increase law enforcement, health and education costs provided by local governments, making specific arguments of harm to the states.
For example, Texas, which initiated the lawsuit, points out that in order to comply with the federal order, it will have to absorb the additional costs of issuing driver's licenses to undocumented DAPA recipients and expanding DACA.
Texas charges $$25 per license, but according to information obtained by the newspaper USA TodayThe cost to the state is almost $200 to process it.
Unlike the Mississippi case, the 26 states' lawsuit presents concrete evidence of economic harm.
The judges must determine whether President Obama's executive actions are lawful and whether he acted properly. If so, the judges could lift the temporary block and allow the implementation of DAPA and the expansion of DACA.
