5th Circuit Court of Appeals hears oral argument in Obama immigration executive orders appeals

The Times-Picayune of New Orleans reports, 5th Circuit in New Orleans hears arguments on Obama immigration action:

5thCircuitWith hundreds of immigration activists rallying outside, a federal appeals court panel heard arguments on whether it should revive President Barack Obama’s plan that could protect 5 million people living in the United States illegally from deportation.

Republicans criticized the plan as an illegal executive overreach when Obama announced it in November. And 26 states challenged the plan in court.

A federal judge in Texas sided with those states and issued an injunction, which the Obama administration appealed.

The three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments Friday. The panel isn’t expected to rule immediately.

Either side could appeal a loss to the full 5th Circuit or the Supreme Court — a process that would eat up time with only about a year and a half left in Obama’s second term.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has posted the audio of oral arguments:

15-40238 07/10/2015 State of Texas, et al v. USA, et al  – MP3

15-40333 07/10/2015 State of Texas, et al v. USA, et al –  MP3

Most Court observers believe this three judge panel of the 5th Circuit, the most conservative activist court of the appellate courts, will side with the states against the Obama administration. The Hill reported prior to oral argument, Obama’s immigration orders face dim outlook at federal court .

The losing side will seek en banc review by the full Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and/or appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court — which means the immigration executive orders would be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in the middle of a presidential election year, emphasizing the GOP’s anti-immigration stance as the Mass Deportation Party with Latino voters.

5 responses to “5th Circuit Court of Appeals hears oral argument in Obama immigration executive orders appeals

  1. Why do you call the 5th Circuit Court and “activist” Court, but never refer to the 9th Circuit Court as an “activist” Court? It strikes me that if one is activist, then both are activist.

    • AZ BlueMeanie

      Because there are no liberal activist courts. When the 9th Circuit gets overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court — far less now than in the past — it is because of the five conservative activist justices on the U.S. Supreme Court. The B.S. legal theories that get advanced in the 5th and 6th circuit courts of appeal by conservative think tank lawyers before conservative activist judges have no basis in precedent and legal practice. In many cases, they make shit up and some conservative activist judges greenlight the case in the hope of getting it in front of the conservative activist justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. You would be hard pressed to find an example of a liberal judge on the federal bench who does this; because we do not have a liberal SCOTUS there is no incentive to do so.

      • “Because there are no liberal activist courts.

        Ha! Ha! Ha! I do believe that is the dumbest thing I recall you ever writing. There could be something dumber, but it escapes me. This just demonstrates how biased and incapable of understanding contrary points of view you are. You are smart, articulate, clever and one dimensional. That’s kind of sad…

        • AZ BlueMeanie

          And yet you cannot provide me with the names of any appellate court justices that meet your definition of a “liberal activist” judge to allow me or anyone else to analyze the merits of your assertion, let alone name any “iberal activist” judge who has succeeded in pushing his or her “liberal” agenda through the U.S. Supreme Court. You make a generalized statement unsupported by any facts and simply pretend that it is true.

          • You are correct about that. But when you make a blanket statement that there are NO liberal activist courts, you set yourself up for repudiation. The 9th Circuit Court IS the activist Liberal Court in the nation. That is my blanket statement based on 50+ years of watching them. Even you made a caveat where they were concerned that they don’t get overturned near as much as they used to, thus grudgingly admitting to their bias.

            I understood your reasoning (and even agree with it to a limited extent) that being a liberal activist court in this day and age is somewhat of a losing gambit, but I don’t think that means they don’t exist.