Search results
13 lis 2023 · On January 22, 2021, Texas sued the United States and Acting Secretary Pekoske in the Southern District of Texas. 14 Arguing the new guidelines violated its agreement with DHS, Texas carefully grounded its claim in “budgetary harms, including higher education and healthcare costs.” 15 Based on these alleged costs, the district court ...
On February 16, 2015, United States District Judge Andrew S. Hanen in Brownsville, Texas, issued a preliminary injunction against an executive action taken by President Barack Obama that would have given illegal immigrants legal status and protection and let them apply for work permits.
18 kwi 2016 · Issue: (1) Whether a state that voluntarily provides a subsidy to all aliens with deferred action has Article III standing and a justiciable cause of action under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to challenge the Secretary of Homeland Security’s guidance seeking to establish a process for considering deferred action for certain aliens beca...
United States v. Texas (2016) Summary. On November 20th 2014, President Obama issued an executive action on immigration. The executive action contained a series of memorandums affecting immigration, and two of them (the most important ones) generated high controversy intermediately after they were announced.
Texas and other states sued to prevent the implementation of DAPA and argued that it violated the Administrative Procedure Act because it had not gone through the notice-and-comment process, and because it was arbitrary and capricious.
Held: (1) That the intention of the two governments, as gathered from the words of the treaty, must control, and that the map to which the contracting parties referred is to be given the same effect as if it had been expressly made a part of the treaty.
United States v. Texas was a United States Supreme Court case decided in 2016 regarding former President Barack Obama's executive action Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA), issued in 2014. At issue was whether the action violated the Administrative Procedure Act as well as the United States Constitution.
