Federal Judge Says Obama’s Amnesty Immigration Order ‘Unconstitutional,’ Steals Congress’ Law-Making Powers

Judge Arthur J. Schwab, sitting in the Western District of Pennsylvania, said Mr. Obama has some discretion in how to enforce laws, but by setting out a comprehensive system to grant tentative legal status to as many as five million illegal immigrants, the president has strayed into trying to write the laws, which is a power reserved for Congress.

Judge Schwab was direct in his statements regarding Obama’s order.

“President Obama’s unilateral legislative action violates the separation of powers provided for in the United States Constitution as well as the Take Care Clause, and therefore is unconstitutional.”

Immigrant rights advocates said the ruling was a shocking overstep of the court’s authority. Indeed, the Obama administration has argued in federal court in Washington that judges have no power to review the president’s decision-making.

Judge Schwab issued the ruling the same day the Senate voted to confirm Mr. Obama’s pick to head U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agency that the president instructed to stand down on most deportations. To qualify, illegal immigrants would need to show they were brought to the U.S. as children, or to show that they have children who are either U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents of the country.

Pittsburgh-based U.S. District Judge Arthur Schwab, a George W. Bush appointee, became the first judge to rule on the legality of Obama’s executive overhaul of immigration rules, when he issued his unusual opinion in a criminal case.

The Justice Department shot back that the judge was “flatly wrong,” and his ruling wouldn’t halt the implementation of Obama’s immigration policies.

The decision, which came in a criminal case against Honduran immigrant Elionardo Juarez-Escobar, who’d been deported before, returned to the United States and faced charges of unlawful re-entry after a drunk driving arrest, was unexpected, and is unrelated to the legal challenge dozens of states have launched against Obama’s move.

Prosecutors in the case argued that Obama’s immigration policies were only meant to apply to civil proceedings, and don’t have any impact on criminal proceedings like what Juarez-Escobar faced. Obama’s action violates the Constitution’s separation of powers and its “take care clause,” Schwab said.

“This goes beyond prosecutorial discretion because: (a) it provides for a systematic and rigid process by which a broad group of individuals will be treated differently than others based upon arbitrary classifications, rather than case-by-case examination; and (b) it allows undocumented immigrants, who fall within these broad categories, to obtain substantive rights.”

Although this ruling will not overturn Obama’s order, several immigrations rights’ organizations have taken notice, as the Obama Administration continues to defend the president’s ruling.

The Justice Department blasted the opinion, with a spokesperson saying it was “unfounded and the court had no basis to issue such an order.”

“No party in the case challenged the constitutionality of the immigration-related executive actions and the department’s filing made it clear that the executive actions did not apply to the criminal matter before the court,” the spokesperson said. “Moreover, the court’s analysis of the legality of the executive actions is flatly wrong. We will respond to the court’s decision at the appropriate time.”

Schwab said Juarez-Escobar didn’t fall within any of the priority categories Obama identified for deportation, so it’s not clear that removing him from the country would be a priority — potentially blurring the lines between civil and criminal proceedings.