Image 01 Image 03

U.S. Judge Blocks Biden’s Deportation Freeze Nationwide

U.S. Judge Blocks Biden’s Deportation Freeze Nationwide

Texas filed a lawsuit against the administration over the 100-day pause in deportations.

U.S. District Judge Drew Tipton in the Southern District of Texas issued a temporary restraining order nationwide for 14 days on the deportation freeze ordered by President Joe Biden.

From Reuters:

After Biden took office on Wednesday, the top official at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a memo that ordered a pause on certain deportations to enable the department to better deal with “operational challenges” at the U.S.-Mexico border during the pandemic.

In a complaint filed on Friday, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said the state would face irreparable harm if the deportation freeze was allowed to go into effect. Paxton, a Republican, said it would increase education and healthcare costs as more immigrants remained in Texas illegally.

Paxton also said it went against the terms of an enforcement agreement Texas brokered with the Trump administration less than two weeks before Biden took office.

Tipton wrote in his ruling that “Texas has thus far satisfactorily demonstrated it is entitled to immediate and temporary relief from the” executive order.

Then Tipton offered interesting points in his scope of relief since he ruled on a nationwide level, not just Texas.

Tipton noted that his court is “concerned about the issuance of nationwide injunctions by a district court,” but they must follow “the precedents of its Circuit.”

In one case, the Fifth Circuit said that “[i]t is not beyond the power of a court, in appropriate circumstances, to issue a nationwide injunction.” This included:

  • A need for “uniformity” in regards to immigration policies across the board
  • “Partial implementation” would cause a distraction from any “integrated scheme of regulation created by Congress.
  • The court also thought “a substantial likelihood that a geographically-limited injunction would be ineffective because [illegal aliens] would be free to move among states.”

Tipton stated that the Fifth Circuit’s explanation fit the lawsuit against the Biden executive order:

  • “The January 20 Memorandum’s 100-day pause plainly affects national immigration policy, which demands ‘uniformity.'”
  • “Because the January 20 Memorandum’s 100-day pause impacts numerous statutes and agency regulations concerning removals and detention periods, its partial implementation would inevitably detract from Congress’s ‘integrated scheme of regulation.'”
  • “Lastly, a geographically limited injunction of the January 20 Memorandum’s 100-day pause on removals would not effectively protect Texas’s interests because of the free flow of movement among the states.”

Tipton pointed out that those who are forced to leave “may migrate to Texas,” which old cause the state “irreparable harm.”


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


So apparently, the center of the legal world has shifted from Hawaii to Texas.

    Joe-dallas in reply to Neo. | January 26, 2021 at 3:30 pm

    Without addressing the merits – one way or another, this would appear to be court shopping, with the exception that the case was filed in southern district of texas (houston) with texas being the plaintiff. I would have thought it should have been filed in the western district of texas (which includes austin).

      Milhouse in reply to Joe-dallas. | January 26, 2021 at 3:37 pm

      Why? The state of Texas is just as much located in its southern district as it is in its western. Why should the location of the capital matter?

        Joe-dallas in reply to Milhouse. | January 26, 2021 at 5:12 pm

        I probably did a poor job in my comment. While some would argue that it was forum shopping, It certainly cant since it was texas that was claiming to be harmed and the suit was filed in texas. Contrast that with the suits against the trump administration where you could find a “harmed” plaintiff in most every US district to have standing to file suit, but somehow managed to find plaintiffs in a lot of friendly courts.

      henrybowman in reply to Joe-dallas. | January 26, 2021 at 3:51 pm

      The entire thing is court shopping, given that it is all happening in Texas.
      And I say that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, no differently than ballot harvesting in California. Those are the rules now, so we’re geared up and ready to play.
      Take that, you Hawaiian biyotch.
      Joe Biden is about to learn: don’t mess with Texas.
      And Democrats are about to (again not) learn — any “innovation” you introduce is two-edged.

        However Texas has a significant Hispanic population, a significant illegal alien population and has the longest border with Mexico of any US state. There is a reason illegal aliens from south of the border are often called wetbacks, and it isn’t from crossing the desert into NM, AZ or CA.

      Milwaukee in reply to Joe-dallas. | January 27, 2021 at 1:06 am

      Please don’t get uppity. Such attitude is most unbecoming. When the Attorney General asked you where to file the suit, what did you tell him?
      Seems to me, Houston, which is more southern than Austin, would represent an area under greater impact, being closer to the border and all. Since the whole country is being impacted, any court would have been appropriate.
      You say these mean things like “court shopping” is horrible.

      FOTin1943 in reply to Joe-dallas. | January 27, 2021 at 12:19 pm

      Texas is Texas, with one very long border where aliens can enter and do enter illegally! And when their deportation is ordered, it needs to be enforced. As some song says “thank God for Texas” – or something to that effect.

I’m sensing another emanating penumbra from the USSC in the future.

KennyP isn’t fucking about is he! ??

Close The Fed | January 26, 2021 at 3:21 pm

Glorious! Live by the Court, die by the Court!

Oversoul Of Dusk | January 26, 2021 at 3:25 pm

It looks like the leftists foolishly left one of their petards unattended, and Mr. Paxton quite correctly hoisted them on it.

I think there are many leftist petards lying around, and that’s a good thing.

    The Friendly Grizzly in reply to Oversoul Of Dusk. | January 26, 2021 at 4:03 pm

    I think there are many leftist petards lying around, and that’s a good thing.

    Petards? Or, pet tards? Examples of the ladder might include Oleatra-cortex, Waters, Clyburn, and our new president.

    “By”, not “on”. A petard is a bomb. When it goes off too close to you the explosion can hoist you up in the air, even if it doesn’t rip you apart.

      NJ observer in reply to Milhouse. | January 26, 2021 at 5:21 pm

      Yes, a “petard” is a bomb, however it’s use in the phrase referred to is usually misquoted (probably from misuse by writers at “The Washington Post” or New York Times”).

      The phrase comes from Hamlet and is “hoist with his own petard”; the meaning being to be blown up by his bomb, or is this case scheme or plan.

        drednicolson in reply to NJ observer. | January 27, 2021 at 6:37 am

        More specifically, a petard was a bomb used by sappers to undermine castle walls. Sometimes these crude, roughly handled explosives would prematurely detonate, launching the unfortunate sapper skyward.

When one side changes the rules, expect the other side to follow suit. I hope conservative courts issue nationwide injunctions for everything they possibly can, and more than a few they can’t.

We’ll then see the democrats claim the court is weaker than the other two branches combined and they’ll ignore it. And when Conservatives get the majority (with spine this time folks… pretty please) we’ll play catchup there too.

    zennyfan in reply to JDmyrm. | January 26, 2021 at 6:35 pm

    Look for SCOTUS to decide forthwith that nationwide injunctions aren’t constitutional. Roberts and his crew can’t have Biden impeded by lower courts; after all, Biden may not know what he’s signing, but he’s not Orange Man Bad.™️

Standing up for civil rights. Novel.

That said, this has to be accompanied with Trump’s work on emigration reform. Social justice adventures (e.g. wars without borders, transnational terrorism), [catastrophic] [anthropogenic] immigration reform (e.g. illegal immigration, excessive immigration, refugee crises), will force progressive direct and collateral damage.

USSC bent over backwards to not officially weigh in on nationwide injunctions in the recent past. Something tells me they won’t be as skeptical about taking it up now.

    Milhouse in reply to ctgarric. | January 26, 2021 at 3:39 pm

    Exactly the contrary. Having already established that they’re not going to interfere with it, they will delight in continuing that position now.

    There was some noise by Thomas that there might be a case in the future that they would use to make a statement on nation-wide injunctions.

    felixrigidus in reply to ctgarric. | January 26, 2021 at 4:38 pm

    Assuming there will be another non-Democrat administration both possible outcomes wouldn’t be too bad.

    Generally speaking, nationwide injunctions should be possible but reserved to the Supreme Court.

    But as long as every progressive district court judge feels free to usurp even plenary presidential power and gets affirmed these precedents need to be applied by judges who without fear or favor apply the law. Even if some progressive announces their intent to openly defy federal law they have sworn to faithfully execute, they don’t get to.

    And, hey presto, suddenly the progressive inventors of nationwide injunctions and the concomitant “file in every district court, you only need to win one case” tactic will complain how unfair this is. And, let’s not forget, “racist.”

      NJ observer in reply to felixrigidus. | January 26, 2021 at 5:36 pm

      The problem, as usual lies with Congress. Only the Supreme Court is mentioned in the Constitution of the US. All other courts were left to be created by Congress as the need arose. That includes their makeup and jurisdiction.

        jakebizlaw in reply to NJ observer. | January 26, 2021 at 9:26 pm

        Hence, Title 28 U.S.C. I’m old enough to remember when 3-judge district panels were required to issue injunctions against government bodies, though I don’t recall the specifics or the rationale for repealing that requirement.

Live by the nationwide injunction, die by the nationwide injunction.

Sauce for the goose…

Good start to the persistence.

caseoftheblues | January 26, 2021 at 4:32 pm

Completely looking forward to another 3 dozen or so of these…
Giddy up…

Yippe ki-yay…..
Way to go Texas!

After taking power via a “lawless” election, why would the ruling party feel a need to abide by a judicial ruling. When the Biden thugs tells the Texas judge to shove it, what can the judge do about it. To quote a guiding light of the Dem/Progs. “How many Divisions does the Pope (Judiciary) have?

Giving thanks to Trump filling all those positions. I don’t expect all decisions to go “our way” but I do expect them to follow the law AND that wouldn’t happen with a judge pointed by Clinton, Obama, or Biden… or even W for that matter.

I love it when courts make ultra-vires rulings to give themselves the power to ignore jurisdiction.

With McConnell and other Senate RINOs caving on the filibuster, even if we win on this at the Supreme Court, we’d still lose.

D’s will simply change federal law.

Simple majority rule.

The Senate will now be nothing but a rubber-stamp for the mob.

Unfortunately, we have lived in another of the border states, Nuevo Mexio, for 20 years. And now there are a D guv, a D “attorney” general, D-controlled legislature. Don’t expect any such action by NM – despite the awful consequences of aliens illegally in the state engaging in criminal conduct, from theft to murder, day in and day out.

By they way, ICE people. That means that if you have anyone with final removal orders, jam their asses on a bus RIGHT NOW and get them gone.