Oh, this is getting good. Justice Andrew Hanen, who as we’ve reported put President Obama’s executive amnesty program on hold while its legality is debating in the courts, issued a rather strong ruling yesterday ordering top DHS officials — including DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson — to appear in front of his court to explain why they didn’t stop the amnesty application process when ordered to:
OUCH: Judge Says Obama Officials Must Personally Appear In Court For Violating Amnesty Injunction http://t.co/BUDr2o5Hh6 #txlege #tcot
— Greg Abbott (@GregAbbott_TX) July 8, 2015
DHS chief Johnson, immigration brass ordered to Texas court in flap over Obama executive actions lawsuit http://t.co/2LaOKGto8b
— Josh Gerstein (@joshgerstein) July 7, 2015
Judge orders DHS Secretary & other top DHS leaders to Brownsville to explain why they shouldn't be held in contempt. http://t.co/eTZRcqB8Ps
— Judge Don Willett (@JusticeWillett) July 7, 2015
https://twitter.com/brianmrosenthal/status/618547894380032004
Law professor Josh Blackman sums it up:
Three days before the Fifth Circuit hears arguments in Texas v. United States, things are still cooking in Brownsville. Long story short, after Judge Hanen issued his injunction, DHS granted nearly 2,000 applications.
In an order issued today, Judge Hanen expressed his frustration that the government still has not taking action to rectify the situation. As a result, he scheduled a hearing for August 19, 2015. “Each individual Defendant must attend and be prepared to show why he or she should not be held in contempt of Court.” Who are the individual defendants? Secretary of DHS Jeh Johnson, the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Protection, the Deputy Chief of U.S. Border Patrol, the Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Yeah, basically, the entire DHS brass.
Blackman quotes from this section of Judge Hanen’s order as well, which seems to indicate that sanctions against these top DHS officials are on the way:
This Court began its last hearing by explaining its reluctance to sanction any party or attorney. If nothing else, sanctions bog both the parties and the Court down on side issues that detract their attention from the real focus: the merits and resolution of the case. Nevertheless, no reasonable person could possibly consider a direct violation of an injunction a side issue. Furthermore, at some point, when a non-compliant party refuses to bring its conduct into compliance, one must conclude that the conduct is not accidental, but deliberate. If these violations have not been corrected by the end of this month, absent very compelling evidence, which this Court will be glad to consider, the only logical conclusion is that the Government needs a stronger motivation to comply with lawful court orders. Neither side should interpret this Court’s personal preference to not sanction lawyers or parties as an indication that it will merely acquiesce to a party’s unlawful conduct.
Boom! Or is it, boom?
There is some precedent that Johnson — and others — won’t have to testify:
There is precedent for the exec branch to petition for mandamus to prevent a high-ranking official from testifying http://t.co/g5HzmoHPM3
— Josh Blackman (@JoshMBlackman) July 7, 2015
@JoshMBlackman Writ of mandamus? There's support for it. http://t.co/V2fXX1sWxL
— Brian W. Toth (@BrianWToth) July 7, 2015
Here's another precedent for mandamus on this, re Vilsack http://t.co/RAamFmI8EW DC Circuit https://t.co/BTaSGzqhw9
— Josh Gerstein (@joshgerstein) July 8, 2015
Stay tuned!
***
Related:
‘Victory’: Federal judge ‘slams’ DOJ lawyers over ‘fabrications’ in Obama amnesty immigration case
As Boehner caves on amnesty, President No issues three more veto threats
Join the conversation as a VIP Member