Supreme Court Won’t Rehear Obama’s Amnesty, but ‘It Ain’t over ‘til the Alien Wins’

Joe's picture

By Joe Guzzardi

Joe is a CAPS Senior Writing Fellow whose commentaries about California's social issues have run in newspapers throughout California and the country for nearly 30 years. Contact Joe at joeguzzardi@capsweb.org, or find him on Twitter @joeguzzardi19.

The writer's views are his own.

October 12, 2016

Give credit to Michelle Malkin for the all-too-true immigration axiom cited in the headline. Malkin coined the phrase more than 15 years ago in her book, Invasion.

Fence jumper unlikely to ever be deported.

The recent Supreme Court decision not to rehear the Obama administration amnesty case provides another example of how tough it is for immigration advocates to accept defeat. America’s Voice, one of the most well-funded, influential immigration advocacy organizations, is urging aliens to find Obama-sympathetic state attorneys general and individuals the Supreme Court decision adversely affected to file lawsuits outside the 5th District Court. The mission of America’s Voice is to challenge, as widely as possible, Texas Judge Andrew Hanen’s ruling which denied affirmative benefits to illegal immigrants, and that the Supreme Court declined to hear again.

In New York, one alien has already filed. Martin Jonathan Batalla Vidal, whose three-year DACA was granted, then revoked, and his two-year DACA eventually restored, claims that because he doesn’t live in Texas, he should not be considered part of the lawsuit, and therefore should not be penalized because of Judge Hanen’s decision. Vidal wants his three-year work permit re-instated.

From Vidal’s lawyer’s August 25 federal filing:

“Martin Jonathan Batalla Vidal is not and has never been a party to the Texas v. United States suit. He did not have a full and fair opportunity to defend his interests in that action, and no other party there adequately represented them….The District Court in Texas v. United States lacked jurisdiction or authority to enter an injunction reaching to New York….The government’s reliance on the unlawfully broad Texas v. United States injunction was legally erroneous.”

The outcome of Vidal’s case is uncertain. Lyle Denniston, Constitution Daily’s Supreme Court correspondent who has covered the court for 58 years, sees it this way:

The state government in New York… had joined with other states in filing a brief in the Texas case in support of the Obama policy, and arguing that the order should not have reached beyond Texas, because that was the only state that the judge had ruled would be harmed by the policy.”

If a New York judge rules on behalf of Vidal, that would leave the door open to many similar lawsuits from other Obama-sympathetic states that the aliens might and probably would win, a confirmation of Malkin’s premise.
 

CAPS blog posts may be republished or reposted only in their entirety. Please credit CAPS as www.capsweb.org. CAPS assumes no responsibility for where blog posts might be republished or reposted. Views expressed in CAPS blog posts do not necessarily reflect the official position of CAPS.

Top