Orly Taitz has an article up titled “I need help in finding this Pennsylvania case of Juarez Escobar (sic), where fed, judge stated that Obama’s amnesty is unconstitutional. Do not see anything in PACER under Juarez Escobar in PA recently.” I like to think of my self as a good person and a helpful one. Taitz, as far as I can tell, auto-deletes my comments, so my attempt to give her the case number and a link to the decision didn’t work. (Awwww.)
This brings me to a point about looking up federal lawsuits online. There is a web site, Justia.com, where one can lookup federal lawsuits, and this web site is a very useful free public resource for finding cases, one that I use frequently; however, it is not the actual federal court system, PACER, and it does not always have everything in the PACER system. I couldn’t find this case at Justia either, even when putting in the hyphen that Orly dropped (actual name is Elionardo Juarez-Escobar). However, the real PACER Case Locator has the case (2:14-cr-00180-AJS). Use of the PACER Case Locator requires a PACER account. I actually went to PACER first in this instance because I knew Taitz was having trouble.
The case itself is interesting and District Judge Arthur J. Schwab said in his order that President Obama’s Executive Action (not Executive Order) was beyond the Administration’s power of prosecutorial discretion, and therefore unconstitutional. His reasoning, as I read it, was based on the principle that prosecutorial discretion is something applied on a case-by-base basis, and not to classes of people as Obama outlined.
Other legal experts have written that Obama’s action is of the same kind exercised by other presidents for decades.
Taitz writes:
He will be deciding on the aspects of Obama’s immigration dictates being unconstitutional, in the actual case brought by Orly Taitz. Judge Hanen is the SAME ..
Actually, the Taitz case involves transportation of undocumented children and is based on her claim of getting sick through treating one of them. That morphed into a case about Ebola, and that transmogrified into a generalized opposition to Obama’s Executive Action, something that happened after she filed her case.
One might want to tell Taitz to shut up, as she is not the representative of the American people and has no individual standing to bring such a lawsuit. Taitz claims “taxpayer standing,” something I have read many time did not apply to Obama eligibility cases. Taitz, however, cites to a case:
Further, Obama claims that Taitz lacks standing as a tax-payer, however this is patently false, as the Supreme Court in Flast v Cohen, via decision penned by the Chief Justice Earl Warren found that US tax payers have standing to challenge actions by the government, as long as those actions relate to spending allocated by the Congress based on it’s spending and taxing power and those actions are illegal.
The Court’s decision in Flast v. Cohen does not grant general standing to all taxpayers. The Court set up this test for taxpayer standing:
To maintain an action challenging the constitutionality of a federal spending program, individuals must demonstrate the necessary stake as taxpayers in the outcome of the litigation to satisfy Art. III requirements. Pp. 392 U. S. 102-103.
(a) Taxpayers must establish a logical link between that status and the type of legislative enactment attacked, as it will not be sufficient to allege an incidental expenditure of tax funds in the administration of an essentially regulatory statute. P. 392 U. S. 102.
(b) Taxpayers must also establish a nexus between that status and the precise nature of the constitutional infringement alleged. They must show that the statute exceeds specific constitutional limitations on the exercise of the taxing and spending power, and not simply that the enactment is generally beyond the powers delegated to Congress by Art. I, § 8. Pp. 1 392 U. S. 02-103.
Obama’s immigration initiative is no way a “spending program” or a “statute,” and Taitz has no individual stake in it (not being herself liable for deportation). In order to sue, the legislation challenged must exceed Constitutional limitations, not simply go beyond delegated powers. She fails both tests. The Flast case had to do with state spending to support religious schools in violation of the Constitution’s Establishment Clause.
Read more:
So, will Schwab’s ruling have any effect on hindering Obama’s executive action, or is this just a minor detail?
And of course, I’m sure that Obama sits late at night, personally composing court responses to such a significant political personality as Dr. Orly Taitz, esq.
In this specific case no, as the government was trying to deport the fellow anyway. Generally, it might have implications for other cases, specifically Klayman’s suit in Texas. Klayman will almost certainly cite this decision.
Part V. Conclusion
“The Court holds the Executive Action is unconstitutional …”
The District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania has ruled. Barring a successful appeal by the federal government, the Executive Action is unenforceable in the Third Circuit.
Thanks for playing, but: No.
The judge actually ordered the defendant to inform the court whether he wished to withdraw his guilty plea or to proceed to sentencing. The rest is dicta, and this case has no effect on the administration’s executive actions regarding immigration.
(And the ruling of one judge binds no one other the parties in that case; Sven got even that wrong.)
IANAL, but I understand that the judge is a known judicial kook. He has been removed from at least two cases and forced to recuse himself from at least 17 others for various bouts of unacceptable behavior on the bench.
The case had absolutely nothing to do with the Obama Executive Action. Zero. Zip. Nada. It will have no effect on the Government’s application of the EA.
The judge threw in his comments for free apparently. In my opinion, just to show … well … something … I don’t know what, but something. It appears to be a “look at me” kind of moment.
A holding is not dicta. The District Court held the Executive Action was unconstitutional in its conclusion.
After concluding the Executive Action was unconstitutional, the District Court ordered pleadings to determine how the defendant wanted to proceed “in [the] light of the Executive Action” after the District Court has held the Executive Action is unconstitutional.
Took me 5 secs in Google to find the ruling:
http://de.scribd.com/doc/250318593/US-v-Elionardo-Juarez-Escobar#scribd
I’m however puzzled why the court says “EA unconstitutional”, then “if EA lawful, then…” and continues the case (p. 37). Can anyone explain? I thought considering the EA unconstitutional would make any “if it was not unconstitutional…” aspects moot.
Is it binding? Certainly not in the 3rd Cir. as Sven claims, and probably not even in the W. D. Pa. Courts are only bound by courts directly above them. So a court in the E. D. Pa. is by no stretch of the imagination to pay any heed to this fluff. Are future judges in the W.D. Pa. bound by this? Probably not. Just because one of your equals say something, does not require you to agree with it, unless you have a whole lot of them saying the same thing. Just one shot off loon? Don’t hold your breath.
So what if the Government doesn’t appeal this decision? Nothing happens. Is it going to force the excutive branch to deport people? Who is going to have standing to compel the government to deport a specific person? Up…no one. If a gov’t immigration lawyer tryies to use it when a deportee raises it as a defense, even if the immigration judge follows it, the deportee can appeal. You know what the appeals court will say….hmmmm…a judge asked for briefing on an executive action about deportation, in a criminal case where deportation was not at issue, or even a possible sanction, or even raised…and then declared the executive action, that had nothing to do with the case before himn, unconstitutional. Judicial overreach. The Constitutions lilmits to powers of the court to intances of “case or controversey.” That was lacking here. The judge didn’t have jurisdiciton to decide the question. this thing would get smacked down so fast your head would spin.
HEY BIRTHERS!!! ONE HONEST JUDGE IN PA! Better get you complaints and requests in ASAP before the administration can get to him! HERE’S your one last, best opportunity to get the President. It is up to you to get the judge jurisdiction, you already know how he’ll rule. Get on it NOW!
The District Court speaks for the Circuit until the Circuit Court says the District Court does not speak for the Circuit in a particular case and controversy. A District Court in the Third Circuit does not speak for the District Court in another Circuit, e.g. the District of Columbia Circuit.
This could lead to conflict. The Circuit Courts of the conflicting case and controversy must become involved to settle the matter if there is a circuit split. If the Circuit Courts disagree, then the U.S. Supreme Court becomes involved to settle the matter for all Circuits.
As usual, you are making things up, and are flat-out wrong.
A district court can’t speak for the circuit. A district court can’t speak for another district court. A district court’s ruling in one case isn’t even legally binding on another case in that same court.
This judge believes the executive actions are unconstitutional; so? The judge didn’t order anyone to do anything, other than asking the defendant to clarify how he wanted to proceed. Either the defendant will move to withdraw his guilty plea, or he won’t. If this even ever gets to the circuit court (and it most likely won’t), the judge’s beliefs on the subject will have no legal bearing on an issue that would be actually raised on appeal.
This judge is just showboating, just like the judge in Taitz’s immigration case did.
“The case itself is interesting and District Judge Arthur J. Schwab said in his order that President Obama’s Executive Action (not Executive Order) was beyond the Administration’s power of prosecutorial discretion, and therefore unconstitutional. His reasoning, as I read it, was based on the principle that prosecutorial discretion is something applied on a case-by-base basis, and not to classes of people as Obama outlined.”
If Doc C says is unconstitutional then its unconstitutional especially since Doc C’s reasoning of the case appears to lead him to this conclusion.
But I didn’t say that.
Arthur Schwab is a classic Bush appointee judge. He was a professor at ultra-conservative Grove City College before being put on the bench.
Grove City College professors are notable for their advocacy of intelligent design and homosexual conversion therapy, among other things.
Today’s noise is all about the Cuban embargo. I have thus far failed to engage any of my usual wingnuts on the point that the embargo was the result of a sweeping Executive Order by President Kennedy in the first place. If an EO can put such an embargo in place to begin with, why wouldn’t an EO be able to withdraw it?
Would the Republicans regard Kenedy’s EO as Constitutionally valid today? I find it unlikely.
Please identify your least favorite Presidential Executive order, and state precisely what statute or regulation would be violated by an individual or party carrying out the order.
Please be specific. Thank you.
How do you feel about President Kennedy’s 1962 Executive Order which severed trade and diplomatic relations with Cuba? Was that Constitutionally valid or wasn’t it?
A fly in the ointment in this argument is that Congress put the embargo into law. It still gives the President to move, however.
—-
I just read the opinion and will offer my sense of what the judge has done here, though I am not an immigration lawyer.
First, its confusing because, although the judge is opining that the EA is unconstitutional, that question is not properly before the court. In this case, the court has no power to enjoin the EA, and neither the government nor the criminal defendant wants/asked the court to strike the EA down. In short, it’s a empty gesture, with no bearing on the implementation of the EA, and no bearing on the criminal case before the court. Dicta.
Second, and more importantly, the court recognizes that if it fails to give effect to the EA, the court may end up violating the defendant’s well-settled constitutional due process rights. The court does not want to do that.
Specifically, the defendant in this case entered a plea of guilty (prior to the EA), presumptively based upon a thoughtful analysis of various factors–including an expectation of deportation. Now, with the EA, he likely won’t face deportation, and he may possibly qualify to apply for a family-based deferred status. With these new factors, the defendant may want to reconsider and withdraw his guilty plea–and likely has a constitutional due process right to do so. Thus, to ensure constitutional due process, the court ordered the defendant to reconsider his legal position in light of the EA, and to file a motion/brief accordingly.
Um, actually, since district court cases do not establish a binding precedent, this will have absolutely no problem in the 3rd Circuit. Even if it did establish binding precedent, it would not apply to the entire 3rd Circuit, it would apply to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Let’s take a look at another issue that’s been working it’s way through the Federal Courts. The Gay Marriage cases. Just because a judge in the District of Idaho (for instance) ruled that Gay Marriage was unconstitutional, did not apply that ruling outside of Idaho. It took it to go upto the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for it to apply to the 9th Circuit.
Now, if there’s an appeal, then the circuit court will take the reasoning, and their ruling one way or another, would be binding. Another thing about our judicial system that you do not understand.
Thank you, that clears a few things up for me. 🙂
In your example, the District Court in Idaho was ruling on the Constitutionality of the State of Idaho’s law on gay marriage. Consequently, the District Court’s ruling would not apply to a jurisdiction outside of the State of Idaho.
The Escobar case is distinguishable from your example because it is a federal case against against an individual accused of violating a federal law. Although the US federal government properly argued the EA did not apply to criminal defendants accused of violation US federal immigration laws, Judge Schwab held the EA was unconstitutional.
The EA is unenforceable in all courts, federal or state, in the Third Circuit until it is stayed pending appeal or successfully appealed by the US federal government. Outside of the Third Circuit, the District Court may take notice of Judge Schwab’s holding, but the court outside of the Third Circuit is not obligated by precedent unless the case is reheard and there is an en banc ruling supporting Judge Schwab’s holding or an appeal in the Third Circuit.
Trust me. I know what I’m talking about. I graduated 1st in my class at the fake SvenMagnussen School of Law.
I do not trust you, sorry.
So, Sven babes, haven’t heard, where are you with getting a copy of that naturalization certificate you babble on about.
Remember, the naturalization certificate that is available for a doughty researcher like you to go and pull from the archives.
You remember, the one I provided you with the necessary details on how to perform and source such a request of a publicly available document…
That naturalization certificate..
And you would be totally wrong, like everything else you speak about here.
You true believers are a hoot. Any thin straw that you can grab, your sweaty mitts are on them.
I doubt that. Federal courts lack the power to issue advisory opinions. Rare to see a federal judge essentially bloviating like a Fox News talking head. While he was at it, he might just as well have ruled that Obama was born in Kenya. That issue wasn’t before him either, but hey, what the heck.
No matter how many times it is explained to you, you are still wrong. Judge Schwab’s ruling isn’t even binding on the very next case on his docket, let alone any other court.
If the judge had ordered the executive branch to not implement President Obama’s executive actions, you might be a little closer to be correct. But the judge didn’t do that. All the judge ordered was for the defendant to state whether he wanted to withdraw his guilty plea. That’s it.
—
What is there to appeal? What is there to stay? The court’s opinion about the unconstitutionality of the EA is not reflected in the court’s order; it has no real effect on the rights/interests of either party (or anyone else). Thus, there is no basis for either party to appeal it and there is nothing to stay. That should give you a clue that it is mere dicta, regardless of the court’s use of the term “holding”.
Indeed, the court’s order actually reflects the fact that implementation of the EA may benefit the defendant, and reflects the court’s intention to afford the defendant the latitude he may need to realize such benefit from the EA’s implementation.
Of COURSE you did. Quoting some crackpot judge saying it is EXACTLY like saying it yourself. 😛
Yup! I heard that. The only reason why this judge said what he did is for political capital.
Maybe Judge Schwab heard a rumor that there will be two, possibly three, Supreme Court vacancies in the near term? And six Circuit Court judges appointed or nominated by Obama in the Third Circuit could be opening up.
Ahhh… but you also graduated last in your class at the fake SvenMagnussen School of Law.
Sven….
Call Fox News, they seem to enjoy letting “Not a Lawyer, but….:” types have their five minutes of failure….
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/12/17/fox-anchor-is-not-a-lawyer-but-defends-exceedin/201935
—-
No, the federal government did not argue that. Instead, the government merely argued that the EA is not an issue in criminal court–period. If an EA issue comes up, it will be handled in civil court, not criminal court.
Also, Judge Schwab actually said that the EA may apply to the criminal defendant, because Juarez-Escobar is not a felon, and because he may be eligible for family-based deferred status/rights/benefits.
Judge Schwab ruled the EA unconstitutional because it excluded criminal defendants.
Prior to his federal indictment, Juarez-Escobar was convicted of DUI, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, etc. Subsequent to his release from jail, Juarez-Escobar was referred to DHS for an investigation into re-entry into the U.S. after a deportation order was executed.
Judge Schwab concluded the EA was arbitrary and capricious because felons who have served their time and re-entered society are excluded from deferred action with respect to immigration.
Is that anything like the other “rumors” you have touted over the years, none of which have come to pass?
If Judge Schwab has his eyes set on the Supreme Court, he just disqualified himself unless the Republicans somehow both win the White House and get a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.
Still waiting….
So, Sven babes, haven’t heard, where are you with getting a copy of that naturalization certificate of Obama’s you babble on about.
Remember, the naturalization certificate that is available for a doughty researcher like you to go and pull from the archives.
You remember, the one I provided you with the necessary details on how to perform and source such a request of a publicly available document…
That naturalization certificate..?
Schwab’s ruling considered for the first time in another court:
“Last week, a federal judge in Pennsylvania – Arthur Schwab – declared Obama’s immigration action unconstitutional, saying it amounted to de facto legislation, violated the Constitution’s separation of powers and that the executive branch is abandoning its constitutional obligation to enforce the law.
(Judge) Howell repeatedly ridiculed Schwab’s finding – which was part of a criminal case in which the defendant is not eligible for the new deferred status – calling the ruling “puzzling” and a “puzzle.”
“Some commentators have called that case complex. I just call it a puzzle,” she said, launching into a critique of Schwab’s decision to evaluate the constitutionality of a program not relevant to the pending case. “I don’t find it persuasive,” she said.”
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/12/22/judge-considers-arpaio-lawsuit-against-obama-immigration-action
So much for precedence.