Tennessee joins 24 states in fight against Obama’s executive amnesty

Klayman to file ‘leapfrog’ appeal to U.S. Supreme Court in Arpaio case
Bookmark and Share

NASHVILLE, Tenn. – On the heels of an Obama-appointed judge dismissing Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s complaint and motion for a preliminary injunction last week to halt the president’s executive amnesty program that would grant privileges and benefits to over four million illegal aliens, Tennessee Attorney General Herbert Slatery announced on Monday it will be joining another legal challenge to Obama’s executive action, rounding out the number of plaintiff states to 25.

greg abbottThat lawsuit was filed by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott (r) in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas in Brownsville.

Stating it was appropriate for Texas to challenge the executive amnesty, Abbott said, “Texas has come out of pocket to the tune of more than $100 million in law enforcement, education and health care because of what has happened.”

On Monday, while announcing Tennessee would be joining the 24 other states to challenge President’s executive action on immigration, Slatery stated his office “carefully considered whether to join the lawsuit and concluded that it is in the best interest of the state to do so.”

Although the subject of Obama’s executive action is immigration, Slatery pointed out the lawsuit is not.

He said, “It is really more about the rule of law and the limitations that prevent the executive branch from taking over a role constitutionally reserved for Congress. The executive directives issued by the White House and Homeland Security conflict with existing federal law. They replace prosecutorial discretion, normally determined on a case by case basis, with a unilateral non-enforcement policy protecting over four million people. The directives also are rules that have been issued without complying with the Administrative Procedures Act. However frustrating and painstakingly long the federal legislative process may be, making law is the prerogative of Congress, not the executive branch.”

Statery noted all the issues raised in the lawsuit, as well as the executive directives, can be resolved by Congress, by enacting legislation.

However, he stated, Tennessee could not sit idly by when unlawful directives of this magnitude grant lawful presence and other rights like work permits to such a large number.

herbert slaterySlatery (l) said, “Asking a court to review this issue is the prudent choice, especially when state resources will be taxed under the directives to provide benefits like unemployment compensation and health care.”

In an unrelated case involving an illegal alien who reentered the country illegally after being deported, U.S. District Judge Arthur Schwab from the Western District of Pennsylvania concluded the executive amnesty was unconstitutional.

Before sentencing the defendant, Schwab asked the prosecution and defense for arguments as to whether the executive amnesty was applicable to the defendant.

Schwab determined the president’s deferred action program exceeds prosecutorial discretion because it provides for “a systemic and rigid process under which a broad group of individuals will be treated differently than others based on arbitrary classifications rather than case-by-case examinations,” allowing illegal aliens who fall within broad categories to obtain substantive rights and benefits.

He concluded the Obama administration’s “unilateral legislative actions violate the separation of powers provided for in the United States Constitution as well as the Take Care clause, and therefore is unconstitutional.”

Tennessee joins Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin, in the litigation, which is also requesting a preliminary injunction.

Meanwhile, Attorney Larry Klayman of Freedom Watch, who is representing Arpaio, has filed a notice of appeal to the D.C. Circuit Court but plans to “leapfrog” an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in hope of obtaining a more immediate remedy.

Klayman called the judge’s reasoning for dismissing Arpaio’s case flawed and said he firmly believes it will be overturned on appeal.

readers love sonoran news