Georgia and other states’ immigration suit in appeals court this week

The states — 21 of which voted for Republican Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential election — say those programs will increase their costs for services and encourage more illegal immigration. Others say the case is more about upholding the Constitution. They say Obama is trying to illegally bypass Congress, which has rejected several other efforts to offer similar forms of relief.

A case of the Constitution or priorities?

“The issue is not immigration,” said Georgia Attorney General Sam Olens, a Republican. “We all know there needs to be immigration reform. We all know we are a nation of immigrants. … But we need the Constitution to be followed. This is a case about the Constitution.”

Many other states, cities and counties have sided with the Obama administration in the legal dispute. The Justice Department, which is representing the government in the case, declined to comment. But in legal briefs filed with the appeals court, the agency said there is another important issue at stake: the executive branch’s authority to prioritize immigration enforcement at a time of limited resources.

The Obama administration says it is shifting its focus toward deporting recent border crossers, criminals and people who pose threats to national security. Those who have no criminal records but have deep roots and families in the U.S. aren’t priorities for removal, the White House says. Halting the government’s efforts, according to the Justice Department, prevents it from “most effectively allocating its resources regarding removal of aliens to support its paramount mission to protect the homeland and secure our borders.”

In 2010, the DREAM Act — legislation that would have granted legal status to immigrants who were illegally brought to the U.S. as children — failed in the U.S. Senate. Three years later, bipartisan legislation that would provide a pathway to citizenship for more millions of immigrants without legal status stalled in the Republican-led House. Citing inaction by Congress, Obama announced in November that he was acting unilaterally to overhaul parts of the nation’s immigration system. His actions prompted the states’ legal challenge.

District judge suspended order on technical grounds

The states won the first round in February when a federal court in Texas halted the centerpiece of Obama’s plan. That provision would suspend the threat of deportation for immigrants who don’t have legal status but do have children who are U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents. U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen also temporarily suspended the expansion of a similar relief program — called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA — for immigrants who were illegally brought to the U.S. as children.

Hanen did not rule on the constitutionality of Obama’s plans. Instead, he cited technical grounds for issuing his injunction, saying the federal government had failed to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires notices about proposed rule changes and opportunities for public comment.

The Justice Department is now appealing Hanen’s injunction. Two hours of oral arguments are scheduled for Friday before a three-judge panel of the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. Two of the judges are Republican nominees. Obama nominated the third.

Texas Solicitor General Scott Keller will represent the 26 states Friday. Olens said he doesn’t plan to travel to New Orleans for the hearing, stressing that he has faith in Keller, who works in Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s office.

“Every single American should be concerned with the way the President has bypassed Congress to implement his amnesty plan, ignoring the Constitution and mocking the principles of checks and balances,” Paxton’s office said in a prepared statement. “The Obama Administration’s actions set a dangerous precedent, and General Paxton will continue to lead a 26-state coalition to oppose executive amnesty and preserve the rule of law.”

Fifteen states and the District of Columbia — all of which voted for Obama in the last election — have filed court papers in support of the Obama administration’s efforts. So has a large group of mayors, county officials and others representing 73 municipalities across the country, including Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed. They said the government’s deportation relief programs could generate additional tax revenue for their communities by encouraging immigrants without legal status to come out of the shadows and work legally.

“Communities are safer, economically stronger, and better places to live,” the municipalities said in their legal brief, “when undocumented immigrants, who have substantial and longstanding ties to their communities and who pose no threat to public safety, are able to come out of the shadows, engage more fully in civil society, better contribute to the economic growth of their communities, and interact with government officials without fear.”

Final resolution could be years away

Nery Berduo predicted he could qualify for relief under the Obama administration’s initiative. The South Georgia resident illegally entered the U.S. in 1993 when he was 17, fleeing civil war in Guatemala. He started a family here and now has six U.S.-born children. He also learned English, got his GED, bought a home and worked his way up at a local warehouse from forklift operator to operations manager.

Now 39, Berduo said the Obama administration’s program could help him obtain legal status in the U.S. through his oldest daughter when she turns 21. He added it would also give him a sense of certainty about his future in the U.S. and help him decide whether he should go to college here. He wants to advance his career with a business degree or study to become a math teacher.

“I hope they let it go through because it will definitely help a lot of families like mine,” he said. “We came to this country to look for better opportunities. And here in the U.S. you can accomplish those dreams as long as you are willing to do it.”

But a final court decision is not expected any time soon after Friday’s hearing.

“I would firmly expect that one to two years from now this case will be in the U.S. Supreme Court,” said Olens, Georgia’s attorney general. “This could easily take two years. Wouldn’t it be smarter for Congress and the president to pass (an immigration) bill in that time frame?”