Saturday, July 4, 2015
Texas v. United States, the 26 states' challenge to the expanded deferred action program, is incredibly complex procedurally. In addition to the United States' appeal of entry of the preliminary injunction, threef immigrant mothers, who claim that they are eligible for deferred action of the under the new program, appeal a district court order denying their motion for leave to intervene. Along with hearing arguments on the injunction appeal on July 10, the Fifth Circuit will also hear arguments on the appeal of the three proposed intervenors. Professor Michael Olivas has collected the filings in the case, which are available here.
As explained in this Law 360 article, the mothers moved to intervene in the lower court case in January, arguing that the government’s attorneys could not represent their interests. U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen their motion. In the Fifth Circuit, the three women, identified as Jane Does, argued that the federal government’s interests are “diametrically opposed” to their own. “As a matter of law, the federal government cannot represent the Jane Does’ interests when it is statutorily commanded to deport them and routinely takes litigation positions hostile to undocumented immigrants,” the women told the Fifth Circuit.
Led by Texas, the 26 states argue that the intervention denial should be upheld and that the appeal would only waste time. “Movants’ arguments for intervention are manifestly meritless, and continuation of this appeal will waste the court’s and parties’ time and resources,” the states argued.