In United States v. Elionardo Juarez-Escobar, the federal district court for the Western District of Pennsylvania has ruled that the President’s unilateral order is unconstitutional.
Since I don’t agree with the merits of the executive order, this should be a good thing. And I won’t deny that there’s a certain grin-inducing quality to the situation.
But there’s a slight problem: the opinion is horrible. Josh Blackamn says a lot I agree with and says it better than I – although he and I part ways over the delegation business – but the basic issue on which we agree is that the judge was considering Mr. Juarez-Escobar’s criminal immigration charges. He was deported in 2005 and subsequently re-entered the country, which is a criminal act. President Obama’s policy does not apply to him. Judge Schwab was apparently eager to declare the president’s policy unconstitutional, and so he reasoned that if Obama’s policy DID apply to Juarez-Escobar, then it might be outside the president’s authority to apply it, so he was going to decide if the president had that authority.
And, shockingly, he decided that the president did NOT have the authority.
To do what the president had not claimed he was trying to do.
I hate this. The immigration policy is an underhanded and foolish choice by President Obama. But it’s perfectly constitutional. I am so often in the position of reminding the Left here on the SDMB that “unwise” does not equal “unconstitutional,” that it’s sometimes tempting to believe that the Right doesn’t ever suffer from that blindness. Judge Schwab has bravely reminded me of how foolish a notion that is.
I agree, as well. But I do snicker at Obama being told that he overstepped his bounds by a judge overstepping his. And I double-snicker at the administration arguing that point. HA!
Is there a law-talkin’ term for the principle that cases should be decided along a particular line of analysis?
For example, its clear to me that an issue of standing must be resolved before a constitutional question is decided, and not the other way around. What is this concept called?
A question that must be resolved before moving on to other issues is typically referred to as a threshold question and I’ve seen standing referred to in that manner, but the phrase isn’t particular to the law, nor necessarily prevalent there.
Not only does he declare it unconstitutional when he doesn’t have to, he then concludes that he might be wrong, and lets the defendant withdraw his guilty plea, and apply for this exemption, that both the defendant and the government think does not apply to him.
I understood the term Judicial Minimalism to mean what you are saying, sort of. That of favoring narrow rulings that only address questions presented in the narrowest way possible as a way to not upset precedent unnecessarily.
And the judge’s rationale in this particular case was very poor.
I have an argument that may be where this judge is going. Not that I necessarily agree with him but this is I presume his chain of logic.
The Constitution give Congress sole authority
.
Congress gave the Executive Branch discretion on deferring status on some immigrants.
Obama realized the law as written could be used to give blanket deferral to a large swath of immigrants.
The judge rules that this execution of the law actually rewrites the law since it was intended that the deferral be by a case-by-case basis. (I don’t know that this is ever made clear in the text of the law)
Since this is in effect rewriting the law, it violates the separation of powers principle.
It also violates the Constitution in that only Congress can set immigration law.
Add me to the conservative that hate what Obama is doing. We see to often Congress giving their power over to others (President with the WPA or banks with TARP) and no freaking oversight built-in then complain that others are abusing that power and not doing what Congress wants them to do. What a bunch of whiny-ass bitches.
I, for one, would actually like to see this question litigated. Maybe no one has standing, but I think it would be good for the country to have more law on the subject of the boundaries of prosecutorial discretion. But this was obviously the wrong case in which to do it.
Saint Cad: here’s a good post about why “case-by-case” is an illusory distinction.
I referred you to the post not because of it’s analysis of the decision, but because it addresses the notion you alluded to earlier that this action is improper or unlawful because it sets a national standard instead of exercising discretion case-by-case.
I think ultimately it comes down to equal protection. If a cop does not stop the guy in front of me when he runs a red light but does cite me is the “prosecutorial discretion” or violation of equal protection? What about when the DA declines to pursue child support. How do they determine what cases to ignore? Is there racism involved in the decision? Suppose in teenage shoplifting cases, 95% of the uses of “prosecutorial discretion” involve whites.
Just out of curiosity Bricker (or anybody else that feels like chiming in), is there a difference in the Constitutionality of President Obama’s executive order on immigration and the similar executive orders issued by Presidents Reagan and Bush? Can you explain the difference to me or were those orders similarly unconstitutional?
Bricker explicitly said he thinks Obama’s order is constitutional. I guess he could answer whether this decision is at al applicable to the Reagan and Bush examples.