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.