Today, we filed our third brief in support of President Trump’s rescission of President Obama’s unconstitutional DACA program. We urge the Supreme Court to review the three pending injunctions against the rescission issued by Democrat judges. We asked the High Court to determine the legality of “universal injunctions” by district judges, as well as the constitutionality of the original DACA program.
Today, we filed an amicus merits brief in the Supreme Court addressing the 80-year old anti-delegation doctrine. Our brief explains why the “intelligible principle” test that was adopted by the Court has failed to uphold the constitution’s structural integrity. We explain that separation of powers is essential to preserve the liberty of the American people. And we explain why it is particularly problematic for Congress to delegate to an unelected bureaucrat the power to criminalize behavior.
Today, we filed our seventh amicus brief in support of President Trump’s immigration actions, this time, in support of his September 24, 2017 Proclamation. Our brief challenged the purported standing of the plaintiffs below, where the district court based standing on the Establishment Clause, but then granted the injunction based on statutory grounds. Our brief argued that the question in this case was a political one, exceeding the scope of judicial powers, and also raised the point that the President has inherent constitutional authority over immigration. Next, our brief demonstrated that the district court relied extensively on the Ninth Circuit’s previous opinion in Hawaii v. Trump, but that decision has since been vacated, stripping it of precedential value. Finally, we noted that the district court failed to address the public safety basis of President Trump’s Proclamation.
Today we filed our sixth brief in support of the Trump Immigration Executive Orders. Three of those prior briefs were in the Ninth Circuit; one in the In the Fourth Circuit; and one in the U.S. Supreme Court. In this brief, we set out four major arguments, on the critical issues which will be decided by the High Court..
First, we explain that as written and as applied the Establishment Clause only applies to efforts to “establish” a religion, and not supposedly disfavor a religion. (That is why it is sometimes called the “no establishment” clause.) We then explain the sources of the President’s authorities to restrict immigration and refugee admission. We discuss the vast power of the President over refugees. Lastly, we discuss the phony finding of animus as a rationale for judicial usurpation of the power of the political branches. (We even explain how the theories of Saul Alinsky could have helped fashion the complaint against President Trump.
Today, our firm filed its fourth brief in support of President Trump’s effort to impose immigration controls. This brief supported President Trump’s second Executive Order issued on March 6, 2017 — to secure our borders against entry by those coming from select countries where their background cannot be checked.
Our first two briefs were filed in the Washington State challenge, in the Ninth Circuit — one on February 6, 2017 and one on February 16, 2017, with respect to the first Trump Executive Order issued on January 27, 2017. Our third brief was filed in the Fourth Circuit in litigation brought by IRAP on March 31, 2017.
Today we filed a brief in the U.S. Supreme Court supporting the challenge filed by Texas and 25 other states to the Obama Administration’s DAPA amnesty program. (We had earlier filed an amicus brief in support of Texas in this case in the Fifth Circuit, where Texas prevailed.) Our brief explains why the Executive Branch had no authority (through DAPA or otherwise) to grant unilaterally “lawful presence” to approximately 4 million illegal aliens. It also explains that such unilateral Executive Action violates the federal separation of powers. Lastly, it explains why the sovereign States have the right to seek federal judicial review of such unlawful and unconstitutional executive actions as they constitute a constitutional “controversy” that must be decided by federal courts in accordance with Article III, Section 2, and that the traditional rules of standing do not apply.