The Texas Governor and AG now seek to stretch their improvidently granted TRO into over a month- long effective injunction, simply by refusing to move apace, even though they brought this action (purportedly) as an emergency matter.

Acting appropriately, but resolutely to re-affirm the clear federal plenary power over immigration discretionary removal decisions, so long as the underlying process remains lawful — the Biden Administration just made clear that it will not tolerate such lawless foolishness, from the Texas GOP agents — not while at least some of these deportation decisions will almost certainly amount to a death sentence, for the refugee or asylum seeker, in question (if returned to country of origin).

Here’s the latest. I will not quote, but only link the Texas AG’s nonsense. To be clear the US Attorney General’s office offers a cogent look at the ACTUALLY applicable law, for Judge Tipton:

…Speedy resolution of a motion for preliminary injunction is especially urgent now that the Court has enjoined the government’s enforcement discretion and done so on a nationwide basis. As the Supreme Court has long recognized, the executive has “discretion to abandon” a removal action and to “decline to execute a final order of deportation,” whether for “humanitarian reasons or simply for its own convenience.” Reno v. Am.-Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm., 525 U.S. 471, 483–84 (1999) (citation omitted). Each day the government is prevented from pursuing its lawful objectives causes severe harm, not only to the government but also to the public. See Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 435 (2009) (recognizing in immigration case that interests of government and public “merge”).

As it stands, the Court’s Order significantly burdens the exercise of executive discretion afforded by the Constitution and by Congress. U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 4; id. art. II, § 1, cl. 1; 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq.; see Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 395–97 (2012). “[A]ny policy toward aliens is vitally and intricately interwoven with contemporaneous policies in regard to the conduct of foreign relations [and] the war power.” Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580, 588–89 (1952). “Because decisions in these matters may implicate ‘relations with foreign powers,’ or involve ‘classifications defined in the light of changing political and economic circumstances,’ such judgments ‘are frequently of a character more appropriate to either the Legislature or the Executive.’” Trump v. Hawaii, 138 S. Ct. 2392, 2418–19 (2018) (quoting Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 81 (1976)). The United States is confronting significant operational challenges at the southwest border and, moreover, “the most serious global public health crisis in a century.” Pekoske Mem. at 1, ECF 2-2. This global public health crisis affects nearly every aspect of government operations, including immigration enforcement operations….

DHS has determined that an operational pause on certain removals is necessary to allow it to determine how best to address this and other issues inherent to an agency with limited resources; the Court’s Order interferes with the exercise of those important sovereign powers. The United States accordingly has a substantial interest in quickly obtaining resolution — including on appeal if necessary — of Texas’s claim for preliminary relief. Defendants therefore respectfully request that the Court either rule on Texas’s motion for a preliminary injunction on or before February 9, 2021, or expressly convert its January 26, 2021 Order to a preliminary injunction by that date.

Defendants defer to the Court as to the time it needs to resolve the motion in that timeframe, but propose the following briefing schedule, with corresponding word limits given the complexities of the issues involved:

January 29, 2021 – Texas’s Motion at 10,000 words

February 3, 2021 – Defendants’ Opposition at 10,000 words

February 5, 2021 – Texas’s Reply at 5,000 words

February 8, 2021 – Motion Hearing….

Texas previously represented to the Court that it was prepared to file its motion for a preliminary injunction on or before January 29, 2021. See Jan. 22, 2021 Hr’g Tr. at 73:2–73:9. The only thing that has changed since that representation is that Texas has obtained, temporarily, the relief it seeks. Adhering to the deadline Texas initially proposed, or offering only a brief adjustment that still allows a decision by February 9, will give the parties sufficient time to brief the issues — which they have already briefed once — and the Court sufficient time to resolve them before expiration of the Order. . . .

Now the ball is in Tipton’s hands. With whom will he stand? He won’t easily just see it get kicked up to the Fifth Circuit now, and out of his hands. Bet he didn’t foresee this — meeting a more well-versed US Attorney, in his courtroom, than he is. And so — it will be hard for him to get around what the Biden Administration has laid down here, unless he’s inclined to violate his oath.

Speaking of which, this crook of an Attorney General in Texas needs to be. . . disbarred for prior, but ongoing investigations of political corruption — some of them even averred by direct reports inside his own office, lawyers themselves. What a… tool.

But I am grinning, just the same — sweeping away the cobwebs, of inhumanity and corruption is so… refreshing. Yes.

नमस्ते