[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 18091-18092]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                      FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT DECISION

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, we had a very important court of appeals 
ruling last night. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed the 
injunction that had been issued by Judge Hanen in Texas, that blocked 
the President's determination to carry out

[[Page 18092]]

his DAPA Executive amnesty plan. The court found it improper and 
unlawful, and ordered it to be stopped.
  It recalls for us the fact that when the President announced he was 
going to do this no matter what--before the election--great public 
outcry arose. Then he said--for political reasons, obviously--well, I 
am not going to do it before the election, but I will do it after the 
election. That is when I will issue this Executive amnesty and give 
lawful presence and Federal benefits and Social Security cards and work 
authorization to millions of people--4.3 million here in the country 
illegally. It is a dramatic thing. So the country was in an uproar 
about it. It was a big factor in the Republicans winning a huge 
majority in the House and a surging majority in the Senate.
  So what was this all about? Well, Judge Hanen found that this was 
wrong. The President didn't have authority to take people Congress has 
said are here illegally and give them food stamps, health care, 
Medicaid, and work authorization. It went against the law. He couldn't 
do that. And he found that this was such an egregious action that it 
needed to be stopped now through an injunction before the trial even 
completed. So it was that injunction, that blocking of the President's 
amnesty, that went up on appeal to the Fifth Circuit, and they upheld 
Judge Hanen's decision.
  First, 26 States--over half the States--participated in this 
litigation against the President's order, and they were found to have 
legal standing.
  Then the court found this critical legal fact: They found that the 
States that were objecting to the President's order were likely to 
succeed in the final court ruling and on appeal. They found that it 
would likely succeed. And they noted this, referring to the Secretary 
of Homeland Security:

       At its core, this case is about the Secretary's decision to 
     change the immigration classification of millions of illegal 
     aliens on a class-wide basis.

  The Court went on to say:

       DAPA would make 4.3 million otherwise removable aliens 
     eligible for lawful presence, employment authorization, and 
     associated benefits, and we must be guided to a degree by 
     common sense as to the manner in which Congress is likely to 
     delegate a policy decision of such economic and political 
     magnitude to an administrative agency.

  They basically were saying that they see no evidence that such a huge 
event would be delegated to the administrative bureaucrats at the 
Department of Homeland Security. Congress, in fact, I believe--and the 
court went on to say--explicitly laid out how we deal with this.
  The Fifth Circuit rejected President Obama's claim that he could 
issue employment documents--the right to work in America--to persons 
illegally here in any way he sees fit. That is what the administration 
argued.
  The court condemned that interpretation, saying:

       The interpretation of those provisions that the Secretary 
     advances would allow him to grant lawful presence and work 
     authorization to any illegal alien in the United States--an 
     untenable position in light of the Immigration and 
     Nationality Act's intricate system of immigration 
     classifications and employment eligibility. Even with 
     ``special deference'' to the Secretary, the INA flatly does 
     not permit the reclassification of millions of illegal aliens 
     as lawfully present and thereby make them newly eligible for 
     a host of federal and state benefits, including work 
     authorization.

  That is an absolute refutation of the President's position, as well 
it should be, because anybody who is familiar with that debate last 
year knew that it was bogus. The American people knew that argument was 
bogus, and the court affirmed it just last night with clarity and 
consistency.
  They said: Well, historically, the Secretaries have done some of 
these things.
  The court doubted that.
  Quote:

       Historical practice that is so far afield from the 
     challenged program sheds no light on the Secretary's 
     authority to implement DAPA. Indeed, as the district court 
     recognized, the President explicitly stated that ``it was the 
     failure of Congress to enact such a program that prompted him 
     . . . to `change the law.'''

  He asked for this. He asked for legislation to do this, and the House 
of Representatives said no. And he did it anyway. And the court of 
appeals slapped that down as being above the powers of the President of 
the United States, as indeed it is.
  The court found that this DAPA Program is foreclosed by Congress's 
careful plan. Quote: ``The program is `manifestly contrary to statute' 
and therefore was properly enjoined.''
  The President of the United States has a duty to the law, a duty to 
enforce the law whether he likes it or not, and he has a duty to carry 
out the law. That is his oath. He is the Chief Executive. He is the 
person responsible for ensuring that the laws of the United States are 
carried out, and he breached his duty and took steps to absolutely 
eviscerate law passed by Congress. And being unhappy that Congress 
refused to change it as he wished it to be changed, he just did it 
anyway. And that is wrong. The court has slapped him down, as they 
should.
  I hope the American people understand that somewhere in this system 
there is a commitment to law and to propriety and to the right of 
Congress. Congress is going to have to continue to work on this. It 
should boldly assert its prerogative to pass laws and its prerogative 
not to fund Executive amnesties, or any other program we don't think is 
worthy of being funded.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

                          ____________________