A report published last night by World Net Daily says a judge has ruled in favor of Maricopa County, Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio in the first battle in what is expected to be a major court fight over the constitutionality of President Obama’s executive amnesty order. Arpaio's lawsuit is now on a fast track for case arguments and hearings.

US District Judge Beryl A. Howell in Washington, DC, granted a motion by Arpaio's attorney, Larry Klayman of FreedomWatch, to allow the case to move along quickly. Howell ordered President Obama to respond to Arpaio’s motion for a preliminary injunction -- to protect the U.S. while the court considers the constitutionality of Obama’s actions -- by Dec. 15. A full preliminary injunction hearing is set for Dec. 22. Two Department of Justice attorneys representing Obama in the case had asked for the deadline for their initial response to be delayed until late January.

"We are very pleased that Judge Howell has ordered an expedited hearing on our motion for preliminary injunction which asks to preserve the status quo and stop the implementation of President Obama’s executive order," Klayman said after the hearing. "The executive order violates the Constitution, as it seeks to circumvent the powers which the Framers delegated to Congress."

Klayman argued during the hearing that Obama’s executive action "thwarts Sheriff Arpaio’s duties and responsibilities as the chief law enforcement officer of Maricopa County, Arizona."

The complaint states: "This unconstitutional act will have a serious detrimental impact. Specifically, it will severely strain our resources. 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."

Klayman's argument was similar to that in his case against National Security Agency domestic spying, "one day that constitutional rights are violated is one day too long."

"In the NSA case, the Fourth Amendment rights of nearly all Americans were violated. In this case concerning Obama’s immigration order, the constitutional powers of the Congress are being flouted," Klayman said.

WND reported earlier Wednesday that Arpaio’s complaint argued the timing is crucial, because the government already is using funds and resources in order to implement Obama's executive order, and that granting amnesty is likely to draw a new wave of illegal aliens. Department of Justice attorneys Adam Kirschner and Brad Cohen argued that they needed more time to prepare due to the upcoming Christmas holiday.

"This timeline is also warranted because it will be particularly difficult to address the array of issues presented on a condensed schedule in light of the upcoming holidays," the attorneys argued.

Klayman countered by arguing that "the defendants obviously have already extensively reviewed and analyzed their view of the law and precedents. On Nov. 20, 2014, the Office of Legal Counsel of the U.S. Department of Justice released its 33 page legal memorandum for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security."

Klayman told the judge the Obama administration officials "have not only evidenced but publicly boasted that they have extensively examined these issues legally." Arpaio was the first to file a complaint after Obama announced regarding his amnesty plan on Nov. 20.

http://www.examiner.com/article/sheriff-joe-arpaio-wins-first-court-battle-lawsuit-over-obama-amnesty