Even if the agency says it is not, Step 2 asks whether the policy nonetheless draws a line in the sand, coercing conformity.
In Brief . Texas, 2015 WL 648579, at *53.My colleagues conclude that the government has not made a “strong showing” of likelihood of success on the merits. The state plaintiffs also lack standing because they allege only a speculative chain of inferences that Section 5000A will somehow result in additional enrollment in Medicaid and CHIP and thereby burden state finances, despite the government having no ability to enforce the mandate after the 2017 amendment. The only intervening act of a third party is the beneficiaries' decisions to apply for licenses, but it is hardly speculative that they will do so—driving is a practical necessity in most of Texas, especially to get and hold a job, so many beneficiaries will be eager to obtain licenses.
United States v. Texas raises critically important legal issues concerning the discretion of the executive branch in the enforcement of U.S. immigration laws. § 1255, has codified exact ways non-citizens may gain lawful “status,” but has left lawful “presence” broadly defined to include a discretionary “period of stay authorized by the Attorney General.” 8 U.S.C. Moreover, the states claim that the INA does not explicitly give the executive power to provide temporary protection from deportation. That authorization has since been reinforced in the United States Code. Expanding on the arguments made in our petition-stage brief, our merits-stage brief argued that the DHS directives are a lawful exercise of executive discretion consistent with the nation’s immigration laws and an important means by which the President fulfills his constitutional responsibility to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”The Obama Administration appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and on April 13, 2015, CAC filed a friend-of-the-court brief in that court on behalf of a bipartisan group of former members of Congress, urging the court of appeals to lift the injunction and allow DAPA to proceed.On May 26, 2015, following an unusual oral argument session on the issue on April 17, the Fifth Circuit, by a 2-1 vote, denied the government’s motion to stay the district court’s decision pending appeal. Second, the states asserted that DAPA was substantively unlawful under the APA because DHS lacked the authority to implement the program even if it did follow the correct process. Henderson, 287 F.3d at 379–81.The State's allegation that defendants have failed to enforce the immigration laws and refuse to pay the costs resulting therefrom is not subject to judicial review.
Non-citizens who only have lawful presence, but not lawful status, are not entitled to remain in the United States; their presence is revocable at any time. 61 (2006).C.
Step 3: Implementation FactsThe remaining factors also favor the states. If internal executive policy-setting authority—adjusting to limited resources and making critical offender severity determinations, all superintended by Congress—now instead becomes challengeable in courts and forced into “the often cumbersome and time-consuming mechanisms of public input,” Kast Metals, 744 F.2d at 1152, this case, as precedent, may well rise, swell, and burst with clutter beyond judicial control over immigration removal (in)action. Thus, despite the Court’s best-laid plans, United States v. Texas may join other cases of the 2015-16 term that, because of a divided bench, leave many interested parties in limbo. § 553. In the same year, twenty-six states (the “states”) challenged the DAPA guidance. at 253.
Nutrition Inst., 467 U.S. 340, 350 (1984) (quoting Abbott Labs.