(CNSNews.com) - The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dealt a stinging rebuke to President Barack Obama today when it refused a call from his administration [1] to overturn an injunction preventing the administration from moving forward with the president's plan to provide amnesty to as many as 4.3 million illegal aliens through its so-called "Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents" program.

In its straightforward conclusion against the administration's claims, the court directly quoted the U.S. Constitution and the immigration law of the United States.

In its argument to the court, the administration had argued that the injunction was wrong because a single court should not be able to impose an injunction on the implementation of the president's amnesty program nationwide. It also argued that the 26 states suing to stop the president's unilateral action were not suffering any real damage that gave them standing to sue the federal government in court.

The court ruled that the fact that Texas had to either pay $130.89 for each license it issued to an illegal alien granted legal status by the administration or else change the state's driver's license law was, in fact, a real injury. The federal government, the court said, could not force a state to choose between changing its legitimate laws or raising taxes or fees.

"The district court found that Texas would lose at least $130.89 on each license it issues to a DAPA beneficiary, and the United States does not dispute that calculation on appeal," said the court.  "It is well established that a financial loss generally constitutes an injury so Texas is likely to meet its burden."

"That well-established caselaw is dispositive because if pressure to change state law in some substantial way were not injury, states would have no standing to challenge bona fide harms because they could offset most financial losses by raising taxes or fees," said the court. "Texas’s forced choice between incurring costs and changing its laws is an injury because those laws exist for the administration of a state program, not to challenge federal law, and Texas did not enact them merely to create standing."\

In its conclusion, the appeals court said that the president's amnesty program would undermine the constitutional language granting Congress the power to make a "uniform Rule of Naturalization" and would run counter to the express language immigration law enacted by Congress that calls for the law to be "enforced vigorously and uniformly." 

"The government maintains that the nationwide scope of the injunction is an abuse of discretion, so it asks that the injunction be confined to Texas or the plaintiff states," says the appeals court in its conclusion. "But partial implementation of DAPA would undermine the constitutional imperative of 'a uniform Rule of Naturalization' and Congress’s instruction that 'the immigration laws of the United States should be enforced vigorously and uniformly.' A patchwork system would 'detract[] from the "integrated scheme of regulation" created by Congress.' Further, there is a substantial likelihood that a partial injunction would be ineffective because DAPA beneficiaries would be free to move between states."

"The motion to stay the preliminary injunction or narrow its scope pend-ing appeal is DENIED," said the court.

While the U.S Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit is enforcing an injunction ordering President Obama not to implement his DAPA amnesty program, the Republican-controlled Congress passed an appropriations legislation for this fical year, which runs through Sept. 30, that permits the president to use taxpayer money to implement the program.