Federal Judge Excoriates White House for ‘Troubling Misrepresentations’

Wall Street Journal

By Jacob Gershman

April 8, 2015

Federal Judge Excoriates White House for ‘Troubling Misrepresentations’ 

As we noted earlier, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen on Tuesday declined to lift his injunction blocking the Obama administration’s immigration actions.

But another ruling he handed down right afterward is worth a closer look. Warning of possible sanctions, Judge Hanen accused the Obama administration of repeatedly “misleading” the court about the rollout of an expanded work-permit program.

At issue is a part of the White House’s now-suspended November executive action involving the expansion of the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as DACA, which allows deportation relief for people brought to the U.S. as children.

Rebuking Department of Justice lawyers for what he described as “multiple representations,” Judge Hanen says the Obama administration sought to lift the injunction without letting him know that it had already renewed more than 108,000 work permits under new White House guidelines that extend the reprieve period from two years to three.

The judge, as WSJ reports, said he would allow the states suing to stop President Barack Obama’s November executive action to conduct discovery into their claims that the Department of Justice improperly complied with his February injunction.

The Obama administration denies that it wasn’t forthright with the judge.

“We emphatically disagree with the district court’s order regarding the government’s statements,” said Emily Pierce, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department. “We will continue to pursue the appeal of the district court’s injunction in the Fifth Circuit.”

Here are excerpts of Judge Hanen’s order:

This Court expects all parties, including the Government of the United States, to act in a forthright manner and not hide behind deceptive representations and half-truths. That is why, whatever the motive for the Government’s actions in this matter, the Court is extremely troubled by the multiple representations made by the Government’s counsel―both in writing and orally―that no action would be taken pursuant to the 2014 DHS Directive until February 18, 2015.

Had the Court complied with this request, it would have cut off the States’ right to file any kind of reply. If this Court had ruled according to the Government’s requested schedule, it would have ruled without the Court or the States knowing that the Government had granted 108,081 applications pursuant to the revised DACA despite its multiple representations to the contrary…

[E]ven under the most charitable interpretation of these circumstances, and based solely upon what counsel for the Government told the Court, the Government knew its representations had created “confusion,” but kept quiet about it for two weeks while simultaneously pressing this Court to rule on the merits of its motion.

Fabrications, misstatements, half-truths, artful omissions, and the failure to correct misstatements may be acceptable, albeit lamentable, in other aspects of life; but in the courtroom, when an attorney knows that both the Court and the other side are relying on complete frankness, such conduct is unacceptable….

That does not necessarily leave this Court impotent to fashion an appropriate remedy or sanction. Nevertheless, before it does so, it must first be able to determine the extent to which remedial action or sanctions are appropriate.

For more information, go to:  www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com