A federal judge has ordered attorneys to submit a schedule of conferences, meetings or hearings that concern a filing by Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio requesting a preliminary injunction to halt President Obama’s amnesty program.

The issue arose Wednesday when attorney Larry Klayman of FreedomWatch, on behalf of his client, Arpaio, filed the request in a lawsuit that had been brought only hours after Obama’s amnesty announcement on Nov. 20.

The “Order controlling preliminary injunction proceedings” came Thursday from U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell in Washington.

It requires Klayman to submit proof of service of the complaint and motion for preliminary injunction by Dec. 9.

He also must “confer with opposing counsel regarding a mutually agreeable schedule; and (3) submit a joint proposed schedule to govern the preliminary injunction proceedings.”

In a statement released when the request for the preliminary injunction was submitted, FreedomWatch said, “In response to President Obama’s announcement of November 20, 2014, that he on his own authority will grant legal status in the United States to approximately 4.7 million illegal aliens, Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona, and his crime-fighting attorney Larry Klayman, have filed a complaint and preliminary injunction motion with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking to enjoin or stop this illegal action by President Obama.”

The lawsuit, WND reported earlier, had been filed only hours after Obama’s immigration announcement was made.

See more details in Klayman’s WND column “Will federal court block Obama’s amnesty?”

The lawsuit names Obama and Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, Immigration Services chief Leon Rodriquez and Attorney General Eric Holder as defendants. It seeks to avoid “irreversible harm” from Obama’s actions because they will “encourage[e] more illegal aliens to enter the country unlawfully.”

The original complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, also seeks a permanent injunction.

Arpaio, who has been at odds several times with the Obama administration, released a statement at the time.

“This unconstitutional act by the president will have a serious detrimental impact on my carrying out the duties and responsibilities for which I am encharged as sheriff,” he said. “Specifically, it will severely strain our resources, both in manpower and financially, necessary to protect the citizens I was elected to serve. For instance, among the many negative [e]ffects of this executive order, will be the increased release of criminal aliens back onto streets of Maricopa County, Arizona, and the rest of the nation.”

He continued: “I am not seeking to myself enforce the immigration laws as this is the province of the federal government. Rather, I am seeking to have the president and the other defendants obey the U.S. Constitution, which prevents this executive order from having been issued in the first place. This unconstitutional act must be enjoined by a court of law on behalf of not just myself, but all of the American people.”

Klayman explained when the case developed that, “Obama’s form of amnesty violates the U.S. Constitution, plain and simple. The president does not have the authority to rewrite immigration laws as legislation and national policy are enacted by Congress, not by the president.

“The president’s executive responsibilities are to execute – that is implement – the laws enacted by Congress. As Sheriff Arpaio’s attorney and friend, I salute him for being the first to boldly challenge President Obama’s unconstitutional executive order effectively granting amnesty to illegal aliens, some of whom are hardened criminals.”

The most recent filing argues there is no injury by having the current law in force for a little while longer, as the case moves through the courts.

“As a matter of law, defendants cannot be said to be ‘burdened’ by a requirement to continue to comply with existing law as enacted by Congress,” the filing states, but others would be hurt if the injunction is not issued.

“Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s office and deputies, as illustrated in the exhibits attached to the complaint, will suffer the loss of resources and funding diverted to handle the flood of increased illegal immigration, the danger to deputies enforcing the law, and an increase in crime in his county. … Those who cross the border without resources, without a job, without a bank account, and without a home in the U.S., who are willing to break the law to achieve their purposes, and who are released from any social stigma in their home communities where they are known are correlated with an increase in crime,” the filing says.

“There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution which offers any shared authority or role with the executive branch with regard to immigration, admission of aliens to the country, or naturalization or citizenship other than the president’s duty that he ‘shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.’”

Even Obama admitted his actions were beyond the pale, the filing says.

“Especially for the purposes of a preliminary injunction, the extensive admissions by the party-opponent Defendant Barack Obama (estimated to number at least 22 on separate occasions) that these actions violate constitutional principles and legal requirements are strong grounds for issuing a preliminary injunction pending further proceedings in this court,” he wrote.

The original complaint noted Obama, in 2013, said: “The problem is that, you know, I am the president of the United States. I am not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed. And Congress right now has not changed what I consider to be a broken immigration system. And what that means is that we have certain obligations to enforce the laws that are in place even if we think that in many cases the results may be tragic.”

Article printed from WND: http://www.wnd.com

URL to article: http://www.wnd.com/2014/12/judge-lets-talk-about-injunction-halting-amnesty/