REQUESTS WRIT OF CERTIORARI
by Sharon Rondeau
(Jan. 21, 2016) — On January 20, 2016, Freedom Watch and Judicial Watch founder Atty. Larry Klayman filed a Motion for Reconsideration of a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a case involving Obama’s executive actions on illegal aliens from one plaintiff but not the other, who he represents.
On behalf of Joseph M. Arpaio, who is serving his sixth consecutive term as sheriff of Maricopa County, AZ, Klayman filed a lawsuit within hours of Obama’s November 20, 2014 announcement that he would implement “executive actions” allowing millions of illegal aliens to receive protection from deportation under certain conditions.
A group of 26 states which filed suit the following month and Arpaio’s case both claim that Obama’s proposals on illegal aliens are unconstitutional.
In February 215, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas Judge Andrew Hanen found in the plaintiffs’ favor and issued a temporary injunction against the implementation of the plan.
The Obama regime appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, whose three-judge panel agreed with Hanen and the plaintiffs. Later, the full panel of Fifth Circuit judges upheld the partial panel’s ruling.
The government then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which announced on Tuesday that it would hear the case.
The Supreme Court accepts only a very small percentage of the cases it receives.
The AFP referred to Obama’s plan as “orders,” while the White House termed them “executive actions.” Some lawmakers insisted that Obama had issued “executive orders,” but the instructions did not appear in the Federal Register with other executive orders.
Prior to the November 20, 2014 announcement, Obama had taken executive action to create the “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” (DACA) program, which shielded young people brought by their parents to the U.S. illegally from deportation if their applications were approved.
Several DACA recipients have since been accused of crimes, including murder. Obama’s new program would have expanded the provisions of DACA and created a new program, DAPA. Despite Hanen’s order, some DACA participants received extensions of reprieve from two years to three.
Arpaio’s case was argued in Washington, DC, with U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Howell dismissing it on Christmas Eve, 2014. Klayman appealed to the Circuit Court, which upheld Howell’s ruling.
Exactly one year ago, Klayman filed an amicus brief in the lawsuit brought by the 26 states.
On January 19, Klayman posted on his Freedom Watch website an update whose last paragraph reads, “Arpaio and Klayman were disappointed that the Supreme Court did not take Arpaio’s appeal, as well. The Obama administration strongly argued in the Solicitor General’s brief that it was not necessary for the Supreme Court to take both cases. More establishment-type Republicans on the Court seem to focus more on working with state governments rather than a maverick like Arpaio. However, a decision in State of Texas v. United States of America should provide the same relief that Arpaio asked for.”
In his brief the following day, Klayman wrote that the Supreme Court’s decision to hear one case and not the other is “in conflict with this Court’s well-established practice of relying on upon conflicts among the circuits to better inform this Court’s considerations…” Further, Klayman said, “The Court gives the impression that it merely disfavors a party before the federal courts, the lawfully elected Sheriff of one of the nation’s largest counties at 4 million residents, larger than 22 states, Sheriff Arpaio and/or his legal counsel.”
Klayman also argued that Arpaio’s case had “broken new ground” and “now briefs the Court on additional legal issues, concerns, and precedents which are lacking in the related Case No. 15-674,” the case brought by the states.