On April 25 we wrote about a federal court case which held Obama's DREAM policy unlawful, but reserved decision on whether to issue an injunction,
Federal Court finds Obama DREAM policy illegal, but may not require actual deportations:
There are many news reports about the preliminary decision issued by Judge Reed O’Connor in the Northern District of Texas in a lawsuit brought by ICE agents challenging the Obama administration’s administrative DREAM provisions which direct Homeland Security not to commence removal proceedings as to people who meet the criteria.
A copy of the decision is embedded at the bottom of this post. Copies of the Amended Complaint and Motion for Preliminary Injunction are at the links.
The news accounts tend to overstate the breadth of the opinion. The ruling related only to the initiation of removal proceedings, and would not require any particular prosecutorial diligence once initiated, since that issue was not before the Court. Thus, assuming the Judge finalizes the ruling, the Obama administration would be required to commence removal proceedings, but absent further challenges, could allow Obama to delay actual deportations.
The Judge reserved decision on the issue of whether injunctive relief was the proper remedy, and requested further briefing.
Since that time, both the
plaintiffs and the
government have submitted supplemental briefs arguing for and against, respectively, the issuance of an injunction prohibiting the Obama administration from further implementing the policy.
Two private groups have sought to intervene in the case on the side of the government.
The U. Texas-Austin student group
University Leadership Institute is devoted to supporting "DREAM" policies allowing illegal immigrants to stay in the country, get in-state tuition, and defer deportation. ULI also seeks changes in the law
to support these goals:
ULI has received extensive training from experienced political consultants on effective communication and messaging. Our thorough knowledge and new training on messaging and communication has permitted us to more effectively reach out to different communities, including religious groups, businesses, students, activists, and politicians. Our newly formatted messages have proven to be more effective with the mainstream public and have also allowed us to form coalitions with unlikely allies.
The ULI not only seeks to submit a brief supporting the government position, it and certain individual students who have benefitted from the DREAM policy seek to become defendants in the case, which would allow them a
