[ad_1]
Texas has filed a lawsuit in an attempt to stop President Joe Biden’s break on numerous evictions by claiming the Department of Homeland Security violated the terms of an unusual deal with the previous administration that guaranteed the ‘State a chance to influence immigration policies.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced the trial on Friday.
“I told @DHSgov and @JoeBiden last night to reverse his freeze on evictions, which is unconstitutional, illegal and bad for Texas and the nation. They haven’t moved. So #Texas takes them to court, ”the attorney general’s office said on Twitter.
In December and January, DHS signed agreements with several jurisdictions, including the state of Arizona, Indiana, South Carolina, Alabama and Texas, which appeared to be an effort to hamper the Biden administration’s goals of halting deportations, prioritizing immigration arrests to those with serious criminal backgrounds, and expanding asylum opportunities.
The deals, which have raised questions about their legality, pose a potential challenge for the Biden administration as it carries out promised reforms and overhaul of the immigration system after four years of restrictive policies instituted by the former President Donald Trump.
According to documents obtained by BuzzFeed News, DHS was to notify immigration policy changes and give jurisdictions six months to review and submit comments before the agency made any of the proposed changes.
On January 20, the Biden administration issued a pause on deportations for many undocumented immigrants who have final removal orders. The memo says that the 100-day break applies to all non-citizens with a final deportation order, except those who have engaged in an alleged act of terrorism, people who are not United States prior to November 1, 2020 or those who have voluntarily agreed to remain in the United States.
Paxton is seeking to block the moratorium by claiming that its immediate implementation violates the agreement the state signed with DHS, as well as alleged violations of federal immigration and administrative law.
“DHS issued the Jan. 20 memorandum without following the notification and consultation requirements contained in the agreement,” says the Paxton lawsuit. “The January 20 memorandum is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise inconsistent with the law” and “without due process required by law”.
Lawyers wondered about the nature of the agreements.
“That’s exactly what they’re designed to do – cynically erase Biden’s immigration program.” But the agreements are inapplicable. Among other legal flaws, they probably do not have statutory authorization and were probably signed by an acting DHS official without being able to sign them, ”said Pratheepan Gulasekaram, professor at the University of Law School of Law. Santa Clara, noting that the former head of the agency that signed the agreements, Ken Cuccinelli, had been determined to be likely illegally appointed to his department duties.
Steve Vladeck, a professor at the University of Texas School of Law, noted that the lawsuit was filed in a court in Victoria, Texas, in an attempt, he said, to find a friendly judge who was hostile to the ‘Biden administration.
“It would certainly be something if an administration could enter into a contract with a state which prohibited its successor from exercising discretion in the application of relevant federal laws,” Vladeck said.
The agreement establishes a “binding and enforceable commitment between DHS and the Agency” that the local jurisdiction will cooperate with DHS on border security and immigration enforcement in return for “DHS’s commitment to consult the Agency and take its views into consideration before taking any action, adopting or modifying a policy or procedure, or taking any decision which could “reduce or relax the application of the law in respect of immigration, decrease the number of ICE officers carrying out enforcement in the area of jurisdiction, suspend deportations, reduce immigration arrests, or expand the benefits of immigration, among other policies.
The deal goes on to state that DHS will “prioritize the protection of the United States” by enforcing immigration laws in a manner that prioritizes detention and results in the arrest of “aliens. removable ”.
DHS is required to provide local jurisdictions with 180 days written notice of the “proposed action and the opportunity to view and comment on the proposed action, before taking such action” listed above. If one of the parties does not “comply” with the obligations, they will be entitled to an “injunction”, according to the agreement. Either party can “request in writing” to terminate the contract, but must provide 180 days notice.
The state of Texas has previously taken the charge in federal court to block the Deferred Action Child Arrivals program, which protects undocumented immigrants who were brought to the country at a young age from deportation. This lawsuit is still pending in federal court.
[ad_2]
Source link