U.S. District Court in D.C. Hears First Arguments Against Executive Action on Immigration
Washington D.C. - Today, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia heard oral arguments in the case brought against executive action by notorious Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who is seeking to enjoin the DACA and DAPA programs based on the increased burden on his law enforcement office that would allegedly result from these programs. Specifically, Arpaio’s theory is that the President’s executive actions will cause a “flood” of “millions more illegal aliens,” and in turn a “crime wave”—because many “illegal aliens… are repeat offenders.”
Melissa Crow, the Legal Director at the American Immigration Council was in the courtroom today and issued the following statement:
“It was clear that attorney representing Arpaio, Larry Klayman, a well-known conservative lawyer who founded Freedom Watch and Judicial Watch, was struggling to demonstrate the type of “concrete and particularized” injury that is required to bring a challenge of this nature, or that the alleged harms would be a direct result of DACA or DAPA. While disagreeing adamantly with the government’s argument that DACA and DAPA would promote public safety by enabling DHS to focus on high priority threats, he failed to provide any compelling explanation for his position.
“Judge Beryl Howell asked probing questions to determine whether Sheriff Arpaio had established that he had “standing” under the law. She listened attentively to Mr. Klayman’s responses, but seemed skeptical that he had met his burden of proof. Before concluding the hearing, Judge Howell indicated that she would issue her rulings very shortly on both Sheriff Arpaio’s motion for a preliminary injunction and the government’s motion to dismiss the case.
“Mr. Klayman’s repeated reminders to Judge Howell of his personal politics and other cases in which he had been involved seemed to confirm – despite his assertions to the contrary – that this case is more about politics than law.”
For more information on the legal challenges to executive action, see: