Image 01 Image 03

Why aren’t House Republicans suing over executive amnesty?

Why aren’t House Republicans suing over executive amnesty?

The answer is pretty simple

Today the House GOP sued the Obama Administration in federal court over the Administration’s decision to make changes to the version of the Affordable Care Act that Congress passed.

From CNN:

The one-two punch from Boehner marks a new era of tension between Republicans who will officially take over Congress in January, and the President who has signaled that despite his party’s losses in the midterms, he plans to proceed with his agenda without GOP cooperation.

After two Washington firms pulled out of commitments to represent the House in recent months, Boehner hired George Washington law professor Jonathan Turley earlier this week. Turley is an expert on constitutional law and has appeared on multiple television networks as a legal analyst.

Boehner and other top congressional Republican leaders are also contemplating a filing a separate lawsuit challenging the president’s authority to take executive action to give 5 million immigrants temporary status.

This move has been coming since July, when the chamber passed House Resolution 676, which authorized the lawsuit. Although lawmakers are already being criticized for not taking immediate action to stop Obama’s executive order on immigration, there’s a good reason for the delay.

In order to go forward with their Obamacare lawsuit, the House had to pass a resolution authorizing it to do so. H. Res. 676 states that [emphasis mine] “the Speaker is authorized to initiate or intervene…with respect to implementation of any provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, title I or subtitle B of title II of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, including any amendment made by such provision, or any other related provision of law, including a failure to implement any such provision.”

If the House chooses to take legal action against the President over executive amnesty, they’ll have to pass a resolution authorizing the lawsuit after the new laws go into effect in January. It’s unclear whether or not Speaker Boehner could even rally enough support behind this kind of move, seeing as how some House Republicans want to try to find a way to thwart the President by pulling funding from the final spending bill of the year. (This will take some creativity—and a change in law—considering USCIS is self-funded.)

The moral of the story for Republicans is, it’s time to decide how we want to tackle these orders right now. If we decide on a lawsuit, we’ll have to pass a new resolution that specifically authorizes it. If we decide to tackle this via spending provisions, we’ll also have to commit to a serious change in the law, which, considering we’re dealing with a split caucus, might be more than we’re ready to take on.

Featured Image via the NRCC


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Maybe there are some procedural tools available to accelerate this particular lawsuit, but I am not aware of them. Litigation is generally a slow process, and the delay from July until November to file does not suggest urgency.

    Ragspierre in reply to Rick. | November 22, 2014 at 12:52 pm

    There will be a flurry of lawsuits filed in the next few days and weeks.

    One thing I expect is that most will feature a plea for an injunction against Barracula, maybe with temporary orders directed at specific actions by particular agencies.

    Just FYI, there’s an old story about a famous old Houston litigation attorney. He carried (back pre-word processor) forms with him that said essentially:

    This guy, ____________, who lives at ______________, did my guy ____________________ wrong. Now he owes him money. The Court has jurisdiction and venue is proper.

    Now, in Texas, that is enough to get you started…but only started. We allow essentially free amendments to pleadings.

    That is not necessarily the case in Federal courts, where amendments are often only permissive, so you have to draw your original petition a LOT more carefully.

      Not A Member of Any Organized Political in reply to Ragspierre. | November 22, 2014 at 1:44 pm

      RE: “There will be a flurry of lawsuits filed in the next few days and weeks.”


      Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | November 22, 2014 at 1:58 pm

      It’s a VERY good thing!

      There are fine minds and word-processors humming all through this weekend, and will be all up to Thanksgiving and immediately thereafter.

      In many jurisdictions a judge ruling on a preliminary or permanent injunction has to weigh factors including possible harm to the public. Will the DOInjustice argue that the illegal immigrants are the public?

“The moral of the story for Republicans is, it’s time to decide how we want to tackle these orders right now.”

No. Not really.

“WE” have to decide to attack Pres. ScamWOW’s outlawry in EVERY-flucking-possible way RIGHT NOW.

One route of attack does NOT preclude or even impinge on any othersssssss.

Launch them ALL. Now. Or when you get back from eating turkey, at least.


Connivin Caniff | November 22, 2014 at 12:05 pm

It is baloney that de-funding requires a “serious change in the law”. The RINOs are just looking for more excuses to enable themselves to do nothing. And a lawsuit would be another way of doing nothing, as it would only further prove the cowardice of Congress to act on its own, and would place Congress, by such running to the courts, firmly into third place in the Constitutional pecking order, rather than being a co-equal branch.

Professor, please explain. How is USCIS self-funded? Are we collecting $200 dollars for every immigrant that passes “Go”?

      creeper in reply to Ragspierre. | November 22, 2014 at 12:36 pm

      Good grief. We’re funding an entire agency on immigration fees. How much are we charging these people?

      Anyway, thanks for the link. It mostly answered my question.

        Karen Sacandy in reply to creeper. | November 22, 2014 at 1:50 pm

        Not enough.

        Well, a LOT, actually:

        – an I-90 to replace or renew a “Green Card” (Permanent Lawful Resident Status Document) is $450. It must be renewed every 10 years or be replaced if severely damaged.

        – an N-400 to apply for Naturalization costs $595 + and $85 Biometric Fee if you are younger than 75 when you apply.

        Note: you MUST have been a Green Card holder for at least 3 years PRIOR to applying for Naturalization.

        So: Minimum cost in FEES alone is: $1,130 ($450 + $680).

          Chem_Geek in reply to Chuck Skinner. | November 23, 2014 at 12:28 am

          Form I-129F, $340 – permission to apply for a fiancee visa. Form DS-160, $265 – application for a fiancee visa. Form I-485, $985 – adjustment of status from fiancee to spouse.

    Estragon in reply to creeper. | November 23, 2014 at 2:59 am

    It is funded by fees. Congress can still restrict how those fees are spent, though – BUT it is just like any other appropriation, requiring Congress to approve and the President to sign, or his veto to be overridden.

    So the tactic won’t work at all in the lame duck; Reid will never let such a House bill to come to a vote.

    – –

    We can and should try this in the new Congress, but unless 13 Democrats vote to override in the Senate, and about 25 or so Democrats in the House, it will fail. It is still worthwhile to get those Democrats on the record for 2016 and beyond, but it won’t stop Obama’s plan.

Not A Member of Any Organized Political | November 22, 2014 at 12:32 pm

RE: “Why aren’t House Republicans suing over executive amnesty?”

Uh…..because they are really Democrats?

Lawsuit now, AND, request immediate injunction against implementation of proposed changes.

The gov can freeze/seize the people’s assets and tie them up in court proceedings to prevent action – why can’t they freeze/seize the lawless executive?

The Friendly Grizzly | November 22, 2014 at 12:34 pm

The GOP will harrumph and bluster, and in fact do nothing. They are bought and paid for by the US Chamber of Commerce. who want the cheap labor.

The states should sue. They clearly have standing, as Obama’s lawlessness is burdening state taxpayers with billions of dollars in additional expenses, depriving legal residents of jobs, and exposing citizens and legal residents (especially those in the border areas) to increased crime (as Obama’s amnesties encourage and incentivize even more illegal immigration).

State elected officials have a duty to their citizens. If congress won’t act against Obama’s tyranny, then the states must.

Connivin Caniff | November 22, 2014 at 1:14 pm

Gee, I’m not a “Professor”, but, obviously, any funding bill originating in the House could prohibit the specific misuse of such fees, and if the President wanted overall funding for our bloated government, he would have to accept that, and refrain from exercising a veto. If not, HE would be the one shutting the government down over an obscure fee system. But we all know that the RINO’s not only would be scared to take a such a small, principled stand, they don’t even want to do that, because they are a fat and happy part of the beltway elite. So it has nothing to do with a “serious change in the law”: it all has to do with Republican cowardice and betrayal of its base. Of course, as a wishy-washy alternative that may look like action, the Republicans can pathetically throw themselves on the mercy of the courts – that always works out so well, doesn’t it?

    Ragspierre in reply to Connivin Caniff. | November 22, 2014 at 1:41 pm

    Well, yes. I HAS worked out well. The Supremes have UNANAMOUSLY bench-slapped the Obami a smooth baker’s dozen times.

    PLUS, addressing a conflict like this one in the courts DOES have the virtue of following the Constitutional scheme, which you at least pretend to favor.

    Again, that’s not the only avenue of attack. But it certainly is ONE perfectly good avenue.

    As to the defunding…how ’bout we pressure our own people and watch and see before slitting our wrists. Remember what Milton Friedman said about pushing less-than-perfect people, since you can’t ever elect perfect ones.

    Any ‘solution’ that involves ‘shutting down the government’ may sound good, but isn’t practical.

    Of course, we should go back to regular budget order and produce nine separate funding bills, so the ‘shutdown’ would only involve the agencies funded by the one bill. But the self-funding nature of the ICE process would mean they could likely continue anyway.

    Even a plurality of Republicans opposed the 2013 shutdown, and independents disapproved by 2-1. That just isn’t a winning or sustainable strategy, it’s just a naive reaction.

Connivin Caniff | November 22, 2014 at 2:56 pm

I don’t think we are that far apart. I don’t have a big problem with a lawsuit, and I am not hoping for them to became the Founding Fathers, or the ’85 Bears defense; but once, just once, I want them to stand up to this guy, who is a very bad person, on their own, without concern for their future “political viability.” If they can’t do that, I fear that we are all finished. The Court packing will be complete, the new electorate of government dependents will constitute a super majority, and the RINO’s will be pensioned off and happy. And, most importantly, I don’t want to spend the rest of my days having to watch World Soccer.

    Ragspierre in reply to Connivin Caniff. | November 22, 2014 at 4:26 pm

    I get you. On the other hand, I WANT my Congresscritters to be VERY concerned about their future viability in office. I want them to understand many of us will be coming for their hides if they fail to do right here.

    I’m looking at YOU, John Cornyn, and YOU Kevin Brady.

One of the best tacks the Republicans can take is to go after laws that require either union workers or prevailing for government contracts. They should point out the historical racism and exclusiveness of unions in the past and argue that in order to correct historic discrimination these new workers be given priority in jobs.

    Ragspierre in reply to Anchovy. | November 22, 2014 at 4:32 pm

    On one hand, I LIKE the way you think (dirty).

    On the other, the unions are pushing this amnesty, I expect because they see these works as new grist for their mill, and like the rest of the Collective, they know they are losing with Americans.

      Anchovy in reply to Ragspierre. | November 22, 2014 at 5:33 pm

      It is the union bosses that are pushing amnesty. They do not and have never cared about the rank and file and this amnesty will hurt the rank and file. The job of the Republicans is to make sure it hurts the rank and file and that they know who did it to them.

      Non union contractors that hire these new workers should have the same bidding rights as union contractors. Republicans need to push to get rid of the requirements of prevailing wage laws and closed shop laws in order for our new workers to have an opportunity to work and live the American dream.

      For far too many years the trades were closed to minorities. Now it is time to level the playing field and give these new workers a fair chance to make up for lost opportunities. Our strength is derived from a diverse workforce where workers who were formerly discriminated against by unions are granted priority in hiring until parity is reached.

      Start by repealing Davis-Bacon and making all states right to work states. It’s for the new workers and their children. Workplace diversity is our strength.

        Ragspierre in reply to Anchovy. | November 22, 2014 at 5:41 pm

        I agree with all that, with two caveats…

        1. there was a time when union leaders did care about the rank and file. Certainly not lately…


        2. any apparent attack on Davis-Bacon (one of the MOST egregious Collectivist laws EVER) would congeal the unions like you’ve never seen. Maybe it’s time for that. Dunno.

        One OTHER thing…we don neeed no steeeenken new workers, Looocy. We NEED to create a climate where our UNEMPLOYED workers have the ability to work and regain their full citizenship. (I know you know that.)

        Ragspierre in reply to Anchovy. | November 22, 2014 at 5:49 pm

        One other point of disagreement…

        A carpenter’s gang of all white, all black, all East Indian, all whatever…or any mix thereof…no freakin’ difference.

        “Diversity” never drove a nail or sawed a stud. It’s all just guys (in the non-gender-specific).

        But, yeah, the unions were a cess-pool of racism, which was one driver of “solidarity”.

          Anchovy in reply to Ragspierre. | November 22, 2014 at 6:41 pm

          The point is to use the dialogue of the left against the left.
          Here’s the deal… up until President Obama signed the new law it was against the law to hire these workers. Institutional racism pure and simple.

          Now we need to make up for past wrongs. Level the playing field. Increase diversity. Best way to do that is get rid of “Jim Crow” type laws such as Davis-Bacon and closed shop laws. Republicans need to convince America that these laws have been used to discriminate and to continue institutional discrimination.

          Sitting around and throwing tantrums is not going to get us anywhere. We are never going to deport 2, 5, 7 or 22 million people. Forget it. We need to make sure the pain is focused on those that have supported democrats and democrats policies. Making all states right to work states and getting rid of Davis-Bacon would be a fair trade for this amnesty and it can be done using the language of the left.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | November 22, 2014 at 7:14 pm

          OK. Sinking. In.

          Again, I LIKE your thinking. See some impediments, and a couple of actual flaws, but it is diabolical.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | November 23, 2014 at 1:42 am

          Right to work = choice for workers

          Do you EVER get tired of making a fool of yourself?

        Chem_Geek in reply to Anchovy. | November 23, 2014 at 12:33 am

        “right to work” = right to mooch.

All Law Firms in DC Are Democrats is Why House (GOP) Not suing over executive amnesty or anything else

USCIS is self-funded ? no … actually they generate revenue and still cannot spend a dime that has not been appropriated by Congress …

Look for this putz Boehner to do nothing. Zero. Zip.

Many of us believe Boehner has been extorted ever since he became Squeaker, which probably accounts for his outrageous selling out of the GOP base and enabling of President Ebola’s outrageous acts.

A weaklings and backstabbers like Boehner are easily corrupted, and he probably began being corrupted the day he was elected to Congress. A a-hole like him has probably committed ‘light’ corruption a thousand times, and those acts are no secret to people likely holding them over his puny head.

There is no real discussion of anything intelligent so long as this loser is tolerated by us as the most powerful people in the GOP’s group of little girls hogging the GOP leadership.

The gop leadership wants amnesty. Behind their faux outrage they are counting more dollars of personal gain. Which is why nothing will happen, just a bunch of talk/bluster and decade long court action. They can stop Obola anytime with the power of the purse, but