PEOPLE FOR BLOG

Ginsburg Concurrence Is an Important Reminder on Religious Liberty

The Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling in Holt v. Hobbs yesterday upholding the religious liberty claim of a Muslim prisoner who was prohibited by corrections officials from growing a half-inch beard. As noted in our Supreme Court term preview of Holt v. Hobbs, the case involves a federal law called the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, or RLUIPA.

Similar to the better-known Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which was at issue in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, RLUIPA is triggered when the government imposes a "substantial burden on the religious exercise" of a person confined to an institution. When that happens, the action can be upheld only if the government can demonstrate that the burden: "(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."

In this case, especially since so many other prisons around the country allow inmates to grow half-inch beards without a security problem, few expected the prison system would win this case. And it didn't. The Court's ruling was written by Justice Alito, author of the Hobby Lobby opinion, and all the other Justices signed on.

Importantly, while Justice Ginsburg – the author of the Hobby Lobby dissent – joined the Court's opinion, she also wrote a separate concurrence to emphasize a critically important point. In its entirety, it reads:

Unlike the exemption this Court approved in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., accommodating petitioner's religious belief in this case would not detrimentally affect others who do not share petitioner's belief. On that understanding, I join the Court's opinion. [internal citations removed]

The removed internal citations are to her Hobby Lobby dissent's discussion of how religious liberty has always been recognized as a shield to protect people's rights, not as a sword to deny others' rights. Fortunately, Holt v. Hobbs did not present an opportunity for the narrow five-person majority to continue their project, begun in Hobby Lobby, to wholly transform the concept of religious liberty. But Justice Ginsburg (joined by Justice Sotomayor) was right to remind us of the traditional meaning of that phrase in American society and law.

PFAW Foundation

Roberts Court Sets Its Eye on Fair Housing Law

Wednesday morning, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case that is being heard only because of the ideological zeal of its conservative Justices. In the case of Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. The Inclusive Communities Project, the Court is being asked to severely undermine the Fair Housing Act.

Actually, it would be more accurate to say that the Roberts Court's right-wing majority has asked conservatives to send them a case giving them a chance to undermine the FHA, one of the most critically important tools we have to eradicate systemic discrimination in housing. Congress passed the law in 1968 in order to address obstacles to equal housing such as insurance redlining, discriminatory zoning ordinances, and unfair mortgage lending practices.

Under the FHA, a practice that has an unjustified discriminatory impact – even if you can't prove a discriminatory purpose – can be judged to violate the law. This is called "disparate impact." All 11 circuits to have considered the question carefully analyzed the text of the Fair Housing Act and agreed that disparate impact cases are covered under the law. These cases go back to the 1970s and 1980s, and Congress has never amended the law to say otherwise. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) also interprets the law that way.

But conservatives have long been hostile to the idea of "disparate impact" anti-discrimination laws, whether in housing or elsewhere. This is a policy debate they have not been able to win in Congress, but they are hopeful that five right-wing Justices will change the Act for them.

That optimism stems from the fact that this isn't the first time the question has been before the Court. Despite the unanimity among the eleven circuit courts to address the issue, the Roberts Court in 2011 granted certiorari to a petitioner asking them to overturn the national consensus on the law. However, the parties in Magner v. Gallagher settled, meaning there was no longer any case for the Supreme Court to consider. The Roberts Court granted certiorari to a similar petition in 2013 (Mt. Holly v. Mt. Holly Citizens in Action), but that case, too, was settled before the Court could hear oral arguments.

In fact, HUD acted in 2013 in a way that makes the legal argument in support of disparate impact even stronger. While the circuit courts were uniform in their recognition that the FHA prohibits policies and practices with a discriminatory impact, they did not all agree on the same process the law requires lower courts to follow in disparate impact cases. So HUD adopted regulations interpreting the FHA and answering that question. Under Supreme Court precedent, the courts are supposed to defer to reasonable statutory interpretations by the agencies Congress has charged with enforcing those statutes, even if the judge would have interpreted the law differently. So HUD's new regulations make the argument against disparate impact even weaker.

Nevertheless, few were surprised in October of last year when the Roberts Court granted certiorari to yet another petitioner asking the Justices to eliminate the ability to target housing practices with an unjustified discriminatory effect. This is clearly an issue that at least four Justices (the number required to grant certiorari) are hungry to decide. They have a vision of what our nation's fair housing laws should look like, and they are set on turning that vision into reality.

Whether they have a majority is something we don't know yet. But we do know that the Court's decision (expected by the end of June) will have an enormous impact on whether we as a nation will be able to effectively confront and eliminate discrimination in housing.

PFAW Foundation

Ellen DeGeneres Reveals Her True 'Gay Agenda' In Response To Right-Wing Columnist

Last week, People For the American Way’s Right Wing Watch reported on a Christian Post column by right-wing commentator Larry Tomczak in which he warned that Hollywood is “promoting homosexuality” by “targeting innocent and impressionable children.” In particular, Tomczak attacked Ellen DeGeneres, whom he wrote “celebrates her lesbianism and ‘marriage’ in between appearances of guests like Taylor Swift to attract young girls.”

The column caught the attention of none other than Ellen herself, who responded to Tomczak on her show this week.

She told Tomczak: “First of all, I’m not ‘married.’ I’m married. That’s all,” adding “I don’t even know what it means to ‘celebrate my lesbianism.’”

She then revealed her true “gay agenda”:

PFAW

#DemandDemocracy Video Blog: Get Big Money Out of Politics to Fight Economic Inequality

People For the American Way has made passing a constitutional amendment to get big money out of politics a priority since the Citizens United v. FEC Supreme Court decision was first handed down in 2010. In this segment of the #DemandDemocracy video blog series, PFAW Executive Vice President Marge Baker explains why getting big money out of politics is critically important for economic and political equality.

The current political system provides an enormous advantage to wealthy interests[] by allowing them to purchase outsized influence in government. It is impossible to have a government of, by and for the people when a tiny fraction of the population has such an outsized influence on the outcome of elections.

As noted in an article by the Brennan Center:

“Spending in the 2014 congressional election broke records for the most expensive midterm in history estimated at $3.6 billion according to OpenSecrets.org. This included $689 million of outside spending including $154 million in untraceable dark money. According to FollowtheMoney.org, $2.2 billion was spent in state elections in the 2014 cycle which included the election of 36 governors.”

PFAW’s #DemandDemocracy video blog series is a collection of short videos that highlight how big money in politics affects — and often stalls progress on — a range of other critical issues.

PFAW

Fundraiser for Steve Scalise Met with Protestors

PFAW members and other local activists lined the sidewalk outside of the National Republican Club Tuesday afternoon to protest a fundraiser event for House Majority Whip Steve Scalise.

Scalise, who was elected Majority Whip by his Republican colleagues back in June, has come under fire recently after it came to light that in 2002, he gave a speech to a white supremacist group affiliated with former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke. Scalise even has referred to himself as “David Duke without the baggage.”

Incredibly, even after these revelations, the Republican caucus—including Speaker John Boehner – is standing by Scalise. And Scalise certainly doesn’t seem to think this scandal is reason to slow down his fundraising efforts, as evidenced by the meeting his team held with donors on Tuesday, where PFAW members joined protestors from other organizations including Color of Change and Jewish advocacy group Bend the Arc.

It’s hard to believe that the GOP, which has struggled so much to reach minority voters, isn’t distancing itself from party leadership with ties to white supremacists. Republicans need to be held accountable – we need to ask our Republican representatives in Congress whether, in 2015, they are brave enough to take a stand against racism.

Thousands of PFAW members have already signed the petition calling on Speaker Boehner to remove Scalise from his leadership position. Add your name now.


Photo via The Hill

PFAW

#DemandDemocracy Video Blog: Big Money Prevents Progress On Civil Rights

Many major advances in our democracy have come about through constitutional amendments, such as those giving women and African Americans the right to vote. The third installment in our #DemandDemocracy video blog series features Greg Moore, executive director of the NAACP National Voter Fund.

 

Almost every generation of Americans has amended the Constitution to address the most pressing issues of their time. The domination of big money in politics is an issue that affects countless other concerns of this generation, and it must be addressed to make progress on other important fronts.

Want to share this video with your friends? Click here!   

PFAW’s #DemandDemocracy video blog series is a collection of short videos that highlight how big money in politics affects — and often stalls progress on — a range of other critical issues.

Watch the rest of the videos in this series here>>

PFAW

#DemandDemocracy Video Blog: Big Money in Politics Affects Climate Change

Money in politics has an adverse effect on almost all the major issues of our time. Nowhere is this more apparent than on the issue of climate change. The second installment in our #DemandDemocracy video blog series features Charlie Cray, senior researcher at Greenpeace.

The fossil fuels industry spends enormous amounts of money in politics to prevent carbon dioxide regulations from being passed. As noted in a recent report from Common Cause:

“Dark money spending by special interest groups with deep ties and financial support from the Koch brothers and fossil fuel corporations has skyrocketed since the Supreme Court blew a big loophole in ‘sham issue ad’ rules with its Wisconsin Right to Life v. FEC decision in 2007 and then took the lid off in its 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC. The Center for American Progress estimates that outside groups backed by oil, coal, and gas industry spent over $270 million on political advertising during the 2012 election.”

PFAW’s #DemandDemocracy video blog series is a collection of short videos that highlight how big money in politics affects — and often stalls progress on — a range of other critical issues.

Watch the rest of the videos in this series here>>

PFAW

#DemandDemocracy Video Blog: Why Money in Politics is a Women’s Equality Issue

This week, PFAW is pleased to kick off our #DemandDemocracy video blog series, a collection of short videos that highlight how big money in politics affects — and often stalls progress on — a range of other critical issues. The first installment features Linda Hallman, president of the American Association of University Women, who highlights how the dominance of big money in elections makes it harder to make women’s voices heard in our democracy.

Big money in politics tends to reinforce existing inequalities in society. Even though women make up more than fifty percent of our country’s population, “male donors to political candidates outnumber female donors by a ratio of 2.5 to 1.”

The #DemandDemocracy video blog features representatives from various groups explaining how money in politics affects the issues their organization works to address, as well as underscoring their support of a constitutional amendment to get big money out of politics. Groups featured in this series include those working in the environmental community, organized labor, economic and social justice, and faith-based organizations.

PFAW’s #DemandDemocracy video blog series is a collection of short videos that highlight how big money in politics affects — and often stalls progress on — a range of other critical issues.

Watch the rest of the videos in this series here>>

PFAW

House Majority Whip Steve Scalise: David Duke Without the Baggage

The Republican Party never ceases to amaze me. For a party whose problems with minorities are well documented, you would think the GOP would be sensitive to anything that could further erode their reputation among this growing population. Yet after learning that the new House Majority Whip Steve Scalise gave a speech to a white supremacist organization led by former Ku Klux Klan leader, David Duke, Speaker Boehner and the rest of the Republican Party are standing by their man.

Let me just say that again. The # 3 Republican in the House of Representatives gave a speech to a white supremacists group in 2002 led by a former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard! Rep. Scalise even described himself as “David Duke without the baggage.”

The Center for American Progress released a report on Tuesday which underscores the growth in population of the people white supremacist organizations despise. At the heart of the report was the question of whether the Republican party could begin to make inroads with voters of color in order to compete in presidential elections. I am going to go out on a limb here and say that if recent actions are any indication, it’s not looking likely.

People For the American Way and our friends at American Bridge released a Spanish-language ad Monday​ highlighting Scalise’s actions and reminding Latino voters what the Republican party is really all about. The web ad will run in Virginia and Colorado. Read more about the ad here, and check it out below:

PFAW

Sorry, Sen. McConnell, But on Judges, Your Party IS "Scary"

In a recent interview with the Washington Post, incoming Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says his strategy for the next two years is to make sure the Republican-controlled Congress doesn't scare Americans so much that they elect a Democrat for president in 2016. That means trying to sideline the likes of Ted Cruz and others who command the loyalty and enthusiasm of the GOP base.

"I don't want the American people to think that if they add a Republican president to a Republican Congress, that's going to be a scary outcome. I want the American people to be comfortable with the fact that the Republican House and Senate is a responsible, right-of-center, governing majority," the Kentucky Republican said in a broad interview just before Christmas in his Capitol office.

...

"There would be nothing frightening about adding a Republican president to that governing majority," McConnell said, explaining how he wants voters to view the party on the eve of the 2016 election.

Put aside for the moment what it tells you about the current GOP's extremism that the party's Senate leader recognizes that it frightens the American people.

Instead, focus on what McConnell and the Washington Post article left out of the mix: judges. It isn't hard to know what kind of judges we would get if Republicans controlled the White and House and the Senate. All we have to do is look to the last time that happened, during the George W. Bush presidency. At the Supreme Court, the GOP gave us John Roberts and Samuel Alito, who in turn gave us 5-4 rulings in cases like Citizens United and Hobby Lobby. Bush and the Republican Senate also filled the nation's appeals courts with right-wing ideologues like Janice Rogers Brown (who defended the ideology of the Lochner era in a 2012 opinion).

And this was before the Tea Party drove the party even further rightward than it was in the Bush era. Just imagine the impact that Tea Party judges with the Mike Lee and Ted Cruz stamp of approval would have on our laws, our rights, and our country.

PFAW

Fourth Circuit Strikes Down North Carolina Ultrasound Law

A unanimous panel of Fourth Circuit judges today struck down a North Carolina law that forces women seeking an abortion to undergo a sonogram, and then see and hear a detailed description of the fetus - a process that is clearly designed to try and make them choose not to have an abortion. The court bases its decision not on women's right to make their own reproductive choices, but on doctors' First Amendment right not to deliver an anti-choice message that may not be helpful to their patients.

The court focuses on how the law's requirements "impose an extraordinary burden on expressive rights" of the doctors.

While the state itself may promote through various means childbirth over abortion, it may not coerce doctors into voicing that message on behalf of the state in the particular manner and setting attempted here.

Noting that two other circuits have upheld similar laws, the court writes:

With respect, our sister circuits read too much into Casey and Gonzales. The single paragraph in Casey does not assert that physicians forfeit their First Amendment rights in the procedures surrounding abortions, nor does it announce the proper level of scrutiny to be applied to abortion regulations that compel speech to the extraordinary extent present here.

The North Carolina law struck down by this decision did not have an exception for rape or fetal abnormalities. The court writes:

Particularly for women who have been victims of sexual assaults or whose fetuses are nonviable or have severe, life-threatening developmental abnormalities, having to watch a sonogram and listen to a description of the fetus could prove psychologically devastating. Requiring the physician to provide the information regardless of the psychological or emotional well-being of the patient can hardly be considered closely drawn to those state interests the provision is supposed to promote. [internal citations removed]

The repudiation of North Carolina's law was written by Reagan nominee J. Harvie Wilkinson and joined in full by Wliiam Byrd Traxler (a Clinton judge) and Allyson Kay Duncan (a Bush-43 judge). But since today's ruling creates a circuit split, the final decision on laws like this one is likely to be made by the Supreme Court.

PFAW Foundation

No Justice for Anyone Until All Lives are Valued

This weekend, thousands of Americans from all walks of life took to the streets to protest the unaccountable deaths of unarmed African American men at the hands of police officers.
 
The multiethnic, multi-racial, multi-generation, LGBT and straight crowds filling streets in major cities were reminiscent of demonstrations that we have seen so many times before: marches for civil rights, women’s rights, gay rights, workers’ rights.Those marching this weekend recognized that after so many struggles and so many victories, we are still struggling to build a society that treats every human being with dignity under the law.

Something is wrong in America when people of color — particularly African American men and boys — do not feel safe in their own communities. Something is wrong when that sense of unease comes from the very systems we all have been taught to respect, honor, and count on for trust and protection.

This journey has never been easy, and has never moved forward without fearless social movements. Even after the passage of the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the U.S. Constitution, our laws encoded racial segregation for decades and enabled an explicit system of control over Black lives. Even then, African Americans were subjected to the Tuskegee experiment, witnessed the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., mourned the 1985 police shooting of 66-year-old Eleanor Bumpurs. In our history, just as in our present reality, African Americans have faced a dramatically different justice system from the one that white Americans experience.

Tamir Rice, a 12-year-old boy with a toy gun, is shot dead in a park because he is seen as a threat. A father, Eric Garner, allegedly selling cigarettes on a streetcorner dies at the hands of a police officer, and the case never goes to trial. Death without trial is seen as an appropriate punishment for Michael Brown, a teenager who may have stolen a box of cigars. These cannot be trivialized as flukes, or as isolated acts. They are the products of a justice system that still does not value or see all Americans equally.

Those who are involved in any struggle — for the recognition of the humanity of people of color, of immigrants, of women, of LGBT people — must recognize that when a justice system puts one group at risk for rights denied, every group is at risk. No struggle for civil rights will be complete until this injustice is rectified and yes, it can be rectified. But it will require getting to the root causes of racial injustice to forge a democracy that truly represents all of us and build a justice system that protects all Americans.

This past weekend demonstrators, in a unified voice, demanded stronger laws against racial profiling, special prosecutors in cases of police misconduct, and the demilitarizing of police forces. These are reasonable, doable demands. But the solutions must also also go beyond the criminal justice system.

Those of us fighting any civil rights fight must open our eyes and keep them open to the truth that all men are not treated equally in America. Because of this, the voices of four mothers who have lost their sons – Trayvon, Jordan, Michael and Eric – have become a call, a movement for justice like nothing seen in the past decade. There can be no justice for any of us until we consider all lives fully human, fully worth living.

PFAW Foundation

Michigan’s Lame Duck Session Ends Without Passage of “Right to Discriminate” Bill

In a victory for LGBT equality and genuine religious liberty, Michigan’s state legislature ended its 2014 lame duck session last night without passing a bill that would have allowed individuals and businesses to cite religious beliefs to bypass state anti-discrimination laws.

The Michigan Religious Freedom Restoration Act would have allowed business owners to refuse service to LGBT customers, and was initially introduced as a counter to a proposed state bill that would protect LGBT people from discrimination. But while the anti-discrimination bill never even moved, the discriminatory bill passed in the House.

After the bill was introduced in the state legislature, PFAW members and local activists mobilized to call lawmakers and raise awareness of the bill’s dangerous consequences for LGBT Michiganders. Efforts like this are not unique to Michigan and come in the wake of this year’s 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court in the Hobby Lobby case. This legislation is part of a nationwide campaign by the Right to hijack freedom of religion and use it as a weapon to deny Americans their fundamental rights.

Fortunately, the bill -- which has been called the “right to discriminate” bill by some – did not even come to the State Senate floor for a vote.

This was the second of two victories in the Michigan state legislature’s lame duck session. Earlier this month, Michigan Republicans introduced a bill that would change the way the state’s electoral votes are counted in presidential elections. This strategy isn’t unique to Michigan, but is part of a larger right-wing effort to use Republican election victories in blue and swing states to consolidate political power by rigging the Electoral College, tilting the playing field to the GOP’s advantage. Last year, PFAW helped beat back similar plans in Pennsylvania and Virginia that would have changed the way those states apportion their electoral votes. In Michigan, we were just as engaged, with our members and staff attending committee hearings and lobbying legislators.

With the passage of a key deadline last week, the Electoral College rigging bill is also effectively dead for the year. But its proponents can (and likely will) bring it up again in the 2015 session – as they may also do with the “right to discriminate” bill. Michigan’s lame duck session has ended without either of these insidious bills becoming law, but the fight is far from over. We expect to see similar state-level legislative attacks from the Right throughout the next year. PFAW is proud to be a leader in the ongoing fight against right-wing extremism, and we’re ready to keep working in defense of progressive values in 2015 and beyond.

PFAW

Patrick Leahy and This Year's Success on Judges

As we've noted, 2014 has been a year of striking success for judicial nominations, with the Senate confirming a total of 89 circuit and district judges this year. That's the most judges in a single year since 1994, when the Senate confirmed 99 of President Clinton's circuit and district court judges. And due to Republican obstruction, these were not "easy" votes, even though the vast majority of nominees were approved with little to no opposition. Except for 11 who were confirmed by voice vote in the closing minutes of the 113th Congress, Republicans required a cloture vote for every nominee and a roll-call confirmation vote for all but a few of them, meaning that every confirmation consumed a great deal of floor time. (In contrast, about 40% of George W. Bush's circuit and district court nominees were confirmed by unanimous consent or voice vote.)

This yearlong commitment to judges, especially toward the end when most senators just wanted to go home, greatly served the American people and the judicial system we all rely on to protect our rights and the rule of law. Majority Leader Reid rightly made this a priority.

But a special recognition goes to Patrick Leahy, the outgoing chairman of the Judiciary Committee. He and his staff worked hard to process nominees quickly and efficiently, even while Republicans sought to slow the process down for no reason (e.g., routinely insisting on delaying committee votes without need or explanation). Timely hearings and votes are a critical component of an efficient confirmation process. The 11 consensus nominees approved by voice vote at the very end of the 113th Congress were all approved by the Judiciary Committee during the lame duck, and three of them had their hearings at the beginning of the lame duck. This speaks to the chairman's commitment to filling the vacancies on our nation's courts.

But Leahy's contributions went far beyond the Judiciary Committee hearing room. He has regularly spoken out on the Senate floor on the importance of getting judges confirmed, exposing and condemning needless delaying tactics. He has spoken out in party caucus meetings and in one-on-one conversations with his Democratic colleagues. And he doesn't just speak in generalities: He is specific, always with an array of statistics at his command demonstrating his point.

So much of the work of the Senate goes on off camera, in the interactions among its members. Perhaps no one knows that better than Leahy, who has served in the Senate longer than anyone else there today. Our nation is reaping the benefit of his dedication and his talent, since the Senate has gotten the number of judicial vacancies down to below – well below, in fact – where they were when President Obama took office.

This year's success would not have happened without him.

PFAW

Judge With a Political Ax to Grind Strikes Down Obama's Immigration Action

Sometimes you can tell when a judge is just itching to replace their robe with their politician's hat. Today, a federal district judge in Pennsylvania has struck down President Obama's recently announced executive actions on immigration as unconstitutional. But in so doing, Judge Arthur Schwab didn't just reach a wrong conclusion: He wrote his opinion in a way suggesting that he has put his ideological priorities ahead of the law.

The big questions in this case are: (1) Does the executive action apply to Elionardo Juarez-Escobar, the individual in this case? and (2) If so, is the executive action constitutional?

That's the order you'd expect the questions to be discussed, since judges are supposed to avoid making constitutional interpretations if they don't have to. But Judge Schwab – nominated to the bench by George W. Bush – tackled the constitutional question first, declaring the policy unconstitutional. Only then did he get to the second question, where he discussed how difficult it is to determine if the policy applies to Juarez-Escobar. About 2/3 of the way into the opinion, after addressing the constitutional issue, he writes:

[I]f President Obama's Executive Action is constitutional, the Court must determine its applicability to this Defendant.

Actually, he has that backwards: Only if the executive action applies to the defendant does the judge have any business addressing its constitutionality. His desire to jump to the constitutional question raises questions.

So do his needless editorial comments making clear that he disapproves of extending basic rights to undocumented immigrants. He writes:

Although it may seem counterintuitive that the Constitution, a document created to protect the citizens of this Nation, can endow undocumented immigrants illegally residing in this country with any constitutional rights, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that these individuals are entitled to be treated humanely and, at least on a procedural level, are to be afforded with certain constitutional rights and protections.

God forbid.

Adding to the question as to whether Schwab is being more judge or politician, he devotes an entire section to 2011 statements by President Obama that are not relevant to the issue but which far-right Republicans cite routinely. Obama made general comments about not being able to unilaterally change immigration law by executive order. He never said that he could not take any executive action, let alone the actions he took last month, which do not grant citizenship, give people legal status, or otherwise actually change the underlying immigration law.

And that's really the big picture here. Although there are over 11 million undocumented immigrants in the country, Congress only gives the administration the resources to deport about 3.5% of that number. Congress drafted the Homeland Security Act of 2002 with the recognition that decisions about priorities have to be made: In that law, Congress expressly gave the Department of Homeland Security the authority to "establish[] national immigration enforcement policies and priorities." And that's what President Obama is doing, just as other presidents have done before him. And just as the Roberts Court recognized in the 2012 case of Arizona v. U.S., where the Court wrote that "a principal feature of the removal system is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials." President Obama is not doing anything even remotely beyond the pale.

So while President Obama's 2011 statements make great fodder for Fox News, they don't address the current executive actions, and the only reason to include them in a judicial opinion is to score political points.  Fortunately, this is just a district court ruling and is not likely to be the last word on this issue.

PFAW Foundation