In a ruling that focused on procedure and not policy, a federal appeals court ruled Friday that Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Arizona can’t sue the Obama administration to halt Obama’s amnesty on deporting illegal immigrants.
The ruling marks a legal victory for the federal government, but it is a very scant one because the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia didn’t rule on the actual substance of the president’s tentative amnesty program. Instead, the court said Arpaio didn’t prove Maricopa County was harmed by the amnesty and thus had no legal standing to sue.
Arpaio fought back against Obama’s amnesty, announced in November 2014, and claimed the administration’s deferred-deportation program — allowing up to 5 million immigrants to stay in the country — would serve as a magnet for others to cross from Mexico into his jurisdiction. He said illegal immigrants would stay in his area and commit crimes.
Although Arpaio’s challenge to Obama suffered a setback, other challenges are moving forward. The amnesty program was put on hold by a federal judge in Texas. An appeals court in New Orleans is grappling with an appeal in that case. The judges in that case, in an earlier ruling, had found Texas and 25 other states did have standing to sue because the amnesty would add potentially hundreds of thousands of new people able to seek driver’s licenses or other public benefits, which are quantifiable costs.
Larry Klayman, who is representing Arpaio, said the sheriff will not give up the fight and plans to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
“This is costing the taxpayers — the people of Maricopa County — extra money to house criminals that should be sent back to wherever they came from,” he said.
“I’m confident this Supreme Court — which is largely conservative in nature — will agree with us, consolidate the two decisions and rule that Obama’s executive amnesty is unconstitutional,” he added.
h/t: The Washington Times
This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth