Could States Kill Obama’s Executive Amnesty?

Ian Smith, National Review, January 22, 2015

On January 30, the Southern District Court of Texas will decide whether 25 plaintiff states in Texas v. U.S. should be granted a preliminary injunction to stop the Obama administration’s latest, lawless executive amnesty. Establishing “legal standing”–essentially, a plaintiff’s right to sue–is highly problematic for petitioners aggrieved by the non-enforcement of our immigration laws, but the plaintiff states have skillfully laid out in their briefs a comprehensive case for why they should be granted standing.

The states assert several economic interests harmed by the Deferred Action for Parental Accountability (DAPA) program. They cite, among other things, the millions of dollars that DAPA will impose in costs to state budgets and the labor-market distortions created by its work-authorization provisions. If the states are granted standing, their challenge to DAPA’s legality will be allowed to go forward.


{snip} In their briefs, the states cite the costs that illegal aliens add to well-known programs. Texas, for example, must spend an additional $1.3 billion annually in uncompensated medical care, $106 million in CHIP provisions, and $9,473 to educate each illegal-alien child.

The plaintiff states emphasize the added cost to state licensing. They claim that under DAPA, illegal-alien recipients in most states, including Texas, will become eligible to apply for driver’s licenses, which will incur costs. Attorneys for the Justice Department have attempted to rebut this claim, asserting that the costs of processing licenses would be recouped with fees. Texas notes, however, that fees received from non-citizen applicants “do not come close to covering the State’s costs.” The net loss to the state will be as high as $200 per license, not including the costs of renewals, the plaintiff states maintain.


The plaintiff states rely in part on the Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, in which Massachusetts sued the Environmental Protection Agency for failing to regulate carbon emissions from new cars sold in the U.S. The state claimed that the emissions increased climate change, which would disproportionately impact the coastal state by raising sea levels. In Texas v. U.S., the plaintiffs argue, modestly, that their economic injuries are “far more concrete” and traceable than in Massachusetts’s case and that therefore their legal standing should be much clearer.


If they are granted standing and a trial on the case’s merits is held, the states will be able to provide further evidence of their injury under DAPA. Texas, for example, should include as an economic interest the $1 billion in un-recouped law-enforcement costs traceable to illegal aliens. But if Judge Andrew S. Hanen of the Southern District in Texas finds that the states lack sufficient standing and he dismisses the case, the House of Representatives should pass a resolution authorizing litigation to vindicate its institutional injury by filing a separation-of-powers lawsuit against the executive.

Topics: ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • TomIron361

    Could States Kill Obama’s Executive Amnesty?
    Yes they can – 10th Amendment. All that is needed is a governor to do it.

    • Reynardine

      Can they? Yes. Will they? No.

      I think we can safely consider this issue settled.

      • DonReynolds

        Neither side will permit the matter to be settled, regardless of how the courts rule. This is our country and when all peaceful (political) remedies have failed, then we will fight. We are not going to surrender and those who oppose us will not stop until we do.

        • propagandaoftruth

          Yeah, but crypto-Marxists have played he judiciary branch to legislate, so, like it or not, so can others.

          Especially when we have a legitimate point. To ‘de-legislate’ onerous gubbamint shenanigans…

        • Raymond Kidwell

          I don’t think it’s our country. You have 90% self hating whites and maybe 2% WN, or at least whites that stand up for their rights. Face the facts, you are a dispossessed minority being discriminated against by a hostile state. You live in diaspora with no homeland. WNs parallel Jews. In a couple hundred years when America looks like Brazil and the only whites left are those that purposely kept their race alive, then you will have some literal 10% or less white population in the U.S. and then a lot of racially mixed types.

  • dd121

    The Federal courts don’t like to weaken Federal authority. Maybe they will in this case.

    • IstvanIN

      We can hope the states regain some sovereignty.

  • IstvanIN

    I do not understand why the states must use an economic argument, not that I disagree with it, when the simple fact is that people in this country illegally are not citizens, have broken the law by crossing the border and simply being here, have no rights in this country, that the president is not defending the constitution or the nation, is encouraging the breaking of the law of the land, and is essentially defending a hostile, invading population?

    • Ella

      A law is only as good as the enforcement of it.

    • Spikeygrrl

      One must show concrete harm in order to establish standing. Direct financial harm to the States is concrete and quantifiable, whereas political and moral harm are NOT concrete, are NOT quantifiable, and can NOT easily be traced to direct harm to the plaintiffs.

      Short version: This legal strategy just might actually succeed.

    • DonReynolds

      I am even more surprised Obama has not simply wrote a treaty with Mexico, which would only need to be ratified by the US Senate. Under the Constitution, a treaty is higher than any Federal (immigration) laws. There are STILL enough Democrats and RINOs to pass a treaty in the Senate.

  • Awakened Saxon

    A coalition of states acting together could essentially do whatever they want. What could Obama and his handlers do about it? The only thing stopping the states from telling the US to go to Hell is lack of political will.

    • IstvanIN

      There was an attempt to defy the feds a couple of times (1860s and 1950s) that ended for badly for state’s rights, what makes you think something similar couldn’t happen today? Lincoln and Eisenhower both sent troops into the south, it could happen again.

      • Awakened Saxon

        The South was agrarian and sparsely populated in the 1860s. There is no comparison to today. The resistance in the 1950s and ’60s was sporadic and half-hearted, for example the generals in charge of the National Guards of some Southern states committed treason by consenting to being federalised. If the Southern states had stood firm back then, then there isn’t much the US could have done without starting a major war in its own backyard with what was by then an industrialised South with advanced military equipment.

        • I love your name and avatar combination. We need more whites with your fighting spirit. Bravo!

    • DonReynolds

      Leadership, without which, all the other resources will be ineffective.

  • antiquesunlight

    The facts are obviously on the side of the states. OBVIOUSLY on the side of the states, big time. The 9000-whatever dollars per illegal child is in itself plenty enough reason to taxi all illegals back to Mexico asap. Nevertheless, I will be shocked – plenty shocked – if they have any success at all.

    • Raymond Kidwell

      I propose we sterilize them then send them back to mexico. If you don’t want to be sterilized, don’t break the law. It will help alleviate their poverty as well.

    • Who Me?

      Sterilize them and send them back to Mexico, and Mexico declares war on the US. Who does Mexico have as allies? Most if not all of Central and South America, and I wouldn’t be surprised if Canada jumped in on their side. With the US at war with the rest of the N. American continent, the value of the dollar goes down the drain. Mexico has oil, and a lot of the oil producing countries in the Middle East will jump in on their side to protect their finances despite OPEC. There’s your WWIII.
      During this WWIII, is when the states should make their move to separate from the US and form a White nation, It could be in the south or in the northwest, it really doesn’t matter which, there will have to be a lot of “removal” done, but we HAVE to make a stand somewhere or we are gone.

  • DonReynolds

    It may be that the first civil war revolved around the subject of slavery. (Not exclusively, of course.) It may also be true that the second civil war will be fought over the subject of illegal aliens in the US. Not much different actually. In fact, many of the same arguments in favor of slavery are the same arguments made in favor of open borders. We have no choice whether to defend our country from invasion, but our fight is not with the illegal aliens themselves (who have no right to be here), but with the liberal and radical agitators.

  • Constitutional convention of the state legislatures??


    Why am I the only person online talking about the possibility of a Constitutional convention of the state legislatures??

    The GOP controls 30 state legislatures. They are close to controlling several others.

    Once they control 38, they could not only call a Constitutional convention of the state legislatures, but they could then ratify constitutional amendments that could radically alter the constitution and put power back in the hands of the states.

    There is a website that is calling for this, but NO bloggers or comments are calling for this.


    Because political websites are only out for money, not real change.

    • Joe Biden

      Globalists, ie bankers, are in control of both parties and most individual politicians.

      The democracy we are fed on the TV is largely a smokescreen.

  • I don’t think they care because they’re not thinking that far ahead. These people only think as far ahead as the next fund raiser and the next election cycle, and definitely no more distant than the end of their expected lifetimes. All they care about is what they can get from the system while they can get it.

  • Hammerheart

    I wonder how this pending amnesty, if it becomes actualized will effect the African American community? Blacks are a troubled race and they are starting to feel the disenchantment from Obama’s failed promises. The brightest of them know importing a horde of Latin Americans isn’t going to do them any favors.

    Certain parts of LA used to be completely black until Latinos ran them out of those areas. We are talking brutal, no prisoners taken race wars. Are blacks subconciously feeling their impending extinction coming along at the stroke of the president’s pen?

    Unlike liberal whites, Latinos are quite open about their hatred for blacks. This is why the diversity coalition will fail. You can’t just rally a plethora of unlike races and cultures under a single banner and expect the common goal of kill whitey to keep things civilized forever.

    • Who Me?

      “The brightest of them know importing a horde of Latin Americans isn’t going to do them any favors.”
      Check out this from Stacy Gear, starting at about .48 in. All of it is good, and funny too. It’s worth bookmarking.

      www (DOT)