Federal Appeals Court Rejects Lawsuit on Obama’s Immigration Policies

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 14, 2015

CONTACT
Gena Madow, gena@fitzgibbonmedia.com, 802-345-1191, or
Andrea Alford, andrea@fitzgibbonmedia.com, 703-477-1075

Federal Appeals Court Rejects Lawsuit on Obama’s Immigration Policies

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court today unanimously rejected a lawsuit on behalf of Maricopa County, Arizona, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, ruling that his challenge to the Obama administration’s recent executive initiatives on immigration have no legal standing. The court’s decision affirmed last year’s district court decision dismissing the lawsuit.

Statement by National Immigration Law Center Executive Director Marielena Hincapié:

“Today’s sound decision is another victory for aspiring Americans and their 5 million U.S. citizen children who stand to benefit from the Obama administration’s immigration policy directives. This was a baseless attack, on behalf of the country’s most anti-immigrant sheriff. Let this be another reminder to Sheriff Arpaio and his allies that they are standing on the wrong side of the law, public opinion, and history.

“This is just the latest decision following a long line of legal precedent and showing that the decisions in the Texas v U.S. case have so far been outliers. While Sheriff Arpaio, Texas Gov. Abbott, and others opposed to commonsense policies that are good for our country and inclusive of immigrants may continue fighting their legal challenges, we are committed to protecting our communities and ensuring that the programs are fully implemented.

“As a country, we must continue moving toward a world where immigrants are treated with dignity and respect.”

According to the court’s decision:

  • “We conclude that Sheriff Arpaio has failed to allege an injury that is both fairly traceable to the deferred action policies and redressable by enjoining them, as our standing precedents require.”
  • “[Sheriff Arpaio’s] allegations that the policies will cause more crime in Maricopa County are unduly speculative.”

# # #

a.

 

Share