Federal Judge extends injunction against Biden's deportation freeze



A federal judge in Texas has extended his previous order temporarily preventing the Biden administration from beginning its 100-day pause on deportations of illegal immigrants.

Fox News reported that U.S. District Court Judge Drew Tipton in the Southern District of Texas lengthened his suspension of the White House's deportation freeze for another 14 days to give the Biden administration and the state of Texas more time to "provide for a more fulsome record" to assist the court in "adjudicating Texas's motion for a Preliminary Injunction."

Additionally, the judge warned of "the irreparable harm that would accrue to Texas if an extension" was not granted. Though he did acknowledge the Biden administration's argument that "the 100-day pause on removals is necessary to allow" them to take account of "important immigration, foreign policy, and humanitarian considerations."

"The Court may ultimately be persuaded by the Defendants' arguments, but any harm they might incur between now and then does not outweigh the potential for irreparable harm to Texas," Tipton wrote.

As one of his first acts in office, President Joe Biden ordered Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and United States Citizenship and Immigration Services to cease deporting some illegal immigrants for a period of 100 days. Biden's order instructed these agencies within the Department of Homeland Security to conduct a "review and reset" of the former President Donald Trump's immigration enforcement policies, allowing time for the Biden executive branch to begin reversing those policies.

Immediately after Biden signed his executive order, Texas took legal action to sue the Biden administration, seeking a court injunction to block Biden's deportation moratorium. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton claimed Biden's executive order "violates the U.S. Constitution, federal immigration and administrative law, and a contractual agreement between Texas" and the Department of Homeland Security.

In response to Texas' lawsuit, Judge Tipton issued a nationwide injunction forcing Biden to continue deportations until the case is resolved.

On Jan. 22, Fox News reported an internal email sent to ICE officers in Texas that gives insight into how Biden's executive order was enforced. The internal email instructed ICE to "stop all removals" and went on to say, "Release them all, immediately. No sponsor available is not acceptable any longer."

Biden's executive order paused deportations and ordered the release of all illegal immigrants detained by immigration enforcement authorities for minor offenses. Non-citizens who were suspected to have engaged in terrorism or espionage were exempt from the order and could still be deported.

Federal judge blocks Biden's deportation pause for two weeks



A federal judge in Texas has issued an order temporarily preventing the Biden administration from beginning its 100-day pause on deportations of illegal immigrants.

Last week, President Joe Biden fulfilled his campaign pledge to sign an executive order directing Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and United States Citizenship and Immigration Services to cease deporting some illegal immigrants for a period of 100 days. Biden's order instructed these components of the Department of Homeland Security to conduct a "review and reset" of the federal government's immigration enforcement policies, allowing time for the Biden executive branch to begin reversing the policies of the previous administration.

Following Biden's executive order, the state of Texas sued the administration, seeking injunctive relief to stop the Biden administration from following through with the freeze on deportations. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton claimed Biden's executive order "violates the U.S. Constitution, federal immigration and administrative law, and a contractual agreement between Texas" and the Department of Homeland Security.

"Our state defends the largest section of the southern border in the nation. Failure to properly enforce the law will directly and immediately endanger our citizens and law enforcement personnel," said Paxton. "DHS itself has previously acknowledged that such a freeze on deportations will cause concrete injuries to Texas. I am confident that these unlawful and perilous actions cannot stand. The rule of law and security of our citizens must prevail."

On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Drew Tipton issued an injunction blocking the deportation freeze for 14 days.

"The issues implicated by that Agreement are of such gravity and constitutional import that they require further development of the record and briefing prior to addressing the merits," the judge wrote.

In his decision, Tipton found that Texas has a "substantial likelihood of success" in at least two of six claims it has made against the Biden administration: That the executive order violates federal law and that the federal government "arbitrarily and capriciously departed from its previous policy without sufficient explanation."

The judge also said that Texas has provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the deportation pause will "result in millions of dollars of damage" by forcing the state to spend taxpayer dollars on public services for illegal immigrants.

Reacting to the order, Paxton claimed "VICTORY."

"Texas is the FIRST state in the nation to bring a lawsuit against the Biden Admin," Paxton tweeted. "AND WE WON."

"*This* was a seditious left-wing insurrection. And my team and I stopped it."

VICTORY.Texas is the FIRST state in the nation to bring a lawsuit against the Biden Admin. AND WE WON.Within… https://t.co/8xAc1kUqMd
— Attorney General Ken Paxton (@Attorney General Ken Paxton)1611689720.0

Texas threatens to sue Biden administration for 'illegal' deportation pause



The state of Texas is planning to sue the Biden administration after President Joe Biden signed an executive order halting deportations of illegal immigrants for a period of 100 days.

"President Biden is trying to halt deportations of illegal aliens who already have a final order of removal from the U.S.," Gov. Greg Abbott (R) tweeted Friday. "This abandons the obligation to enforce federal immigration laws. Texas is fighting this attempt to grant blanket amnesty."

Abbott shared a letter from Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton addressed to acting Secretary of Homeland Security David Pekoske announcing that the state will sue the Biden administration for its "illegal deportation freeze." The Department of Homeland Security, acting on Biden's orders, on Wednesday paused removals for some non-citizens ordered deported as the agency conducts a "review and reset" of its immigration enforcement policies.

"The pause will allow DHS to ensure that its resources are dedicated to responding to the most pressing challenges that the United States faces, including immediate operational challenges at the southwest border in the midst of the most serious global public health crisis in a century," the agency said in a statement.

Biden's deportation pause is the fulfillment of a campaign promise to radically reverse former President Donald Trump's immigration policies. On his first day in office, President Biden called on Congress to take up legislation granting amnesty with a path to citizenship for up to 11 million illegal immigrants.

Until Congress is able to consider legislation, Biden has vowed to take executive action. Including the deportation pause, Biden took 17 executive actions on his first day in office fulfilling various campaign promises to reverse Trump's policies on climate change, immigration, COVID-19 response management, and more.

The DHS memoranda announcing the new deportation policy lists some individuals who will not be protected from deportation, including those who are suspected of terrorism or espionage, anyone not physically present in the United States before Nov. 1, 2020, and for individual cases where the acting director of ICE and the general counsel make an individual determination that a non-citizen should be removed.

Paxton's letter characterizes this "blanket halt on nearly all deportations of illegal aliens" as a "complete abdication of the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) obligation to enforce federal immigration law."

He argues that allowing the executive order to go unchallenged could "allow the Biden Administration to grant blanket amnesty to the vast majority of the illegal aliens in this country with the stroke of a pen and without congressional approval."

"Border states like Texas pay a particularly high price when the federal government fails to faithfully execute our country's immigration laws," Paxton wrote. "Your attempted halt on almost all deportations would increase the cost to Texas caused by illegal immigration."

Paxton demanded that the federal government rescind the order halting deportations or else the state would sue in court for relief.

House Democrat urges Pelosi to punish, retaliate against Republicans who supported Texas SCOTUS lawsuit



Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) is asking House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to punish those House Republicans who supported the Texas lawsuit that sought to overturn the results of the presidential election.

The Supreme Court on Friday rejected the Lone Star State's last ditch effort to swing the election in President Donald Trump's favor, saying the lawsuit had a "lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution."

What is Pascrell saying?

The New Jersey Democrat said that Republican lawmakers and Republican congressmen-elect should be punished for supporting the lawsuit.

According to Pascrell, those Republicans who supported the lawsuit are violating the Constitution, and therefore should be sanctioned and not seated in Congress.

"The courageous Reconstruction Congress implanted into our governing document safeguards to cleanse from our government ranks any traitors and others who would seek to destroy the Union," Pascrell wrote to Pelosi, citing the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

"Stated simply, men and women who would act to tear the United States government apart cannot serve as Members of the Congress," he continued. "These lawsuits seeking to obliterate public confidence in our democratic system by invalidating the clear results of the 2020 presidential election attack the text and spirit of the Constitution, which each Member swears to support and defend, as well as violate the Rules of our House of Representatives, which explicitly forbid Members from committing unbecoming acts that reflect poorly on our chamber."

"Consequently, I call on you to exercise the power of your offices to evaluate steps you can take to address these constitutional violations this Congress and, if possible, refuse to seat in the 117th Congress any Members-elect seeking to make Donald Trump an unelected dictator," Pascrell demanded.

Pascrell went on to compare this moment in American history to Civil War-era division.

"Rising from the embers of the Civil War, the Fourteenth Amendment was written to prevent the destruction of the United States from without and within. The moment we face now may be without parallel since 1860. The fate of our democracy depends on us meeting that moment," he said.

Anything else?

Since the election, Pascrell has been on a war-path defending Joe Biden's apparent election win.

As TheBlaze reported, Pascrell said in late November that Trump and his "enablers" should be "tried for their crimes against our nation and Constitution."

"Donald Trump and members of his administration have committed innumerable crimes against the United States," Pascrell said, claiming the Trump administration has "engaged in treachery, in treason."

"Therefore, in 2021 the entire Trump administration must be fully investigated by the Department of Justice and any other relevant offices," Pascrell added.

Then, just days later, Pascrell revealed attempts to disbar members of Trump's legal team who were challenging the outcome of the election.

Texas GOP chairman Allen West floats secession in reaction to SCOTUS shooting down election suit



Allen West, the chairman of the Republican Party of Texas, suggested Friday that some states secede from the United States in reaction to the U.S. Supreme Court turning down his state's lawsuit seeking to overturn election results in four other states.

What are the details?

West, a former Florida congressman, issued a statement, saying:

"The Supreme Court, in tossing the Texas lawsuit that was joined by seventeen states and 106 US congressman (sic), have decreed that a state can take unconstitutional actions and violate its own election law. Resulting in damaging effects on other states that abide by the law, while the guilty state suffers no consequences. This decision establishes a precedent that says states can violate the US constitution and not be held accountable. This decision will have far reaching ramifications for the future or our constitutional republic. Perhaps law-abiding states should bond together and form a Union of states that will abide by the constitution."

He added, "The Texas GOP will always stand for the Constitution and for the rule of law even while others don't."

The @TexasGOP is out with a statement in the wake of the Supreme Court decision, all but calling for secession:“P… https://t.co/DqHUYhHOBH
— Adam Kelsey (@Adam Kelsey)1607731626.0

The word "Confederacy" began trending on Twitter following the decision and West's remarks.

But not all Republicans who supported the suit agreed with West. Arkansas GOP Rep. Bruce Westerman, who signed on in support of Texas' litigation, issued a statement calling for unity in the country.

Westerman said, in part:

"Although there are other election lawsuits in courts around the country, I believe the Texas attorney general's case was the best and likely last opportunity for SCOTUS to hear claims of fraudulent voting that could have had an impact on the presidential election results...SCOTUS rejected the case, and I believe closed the books on challenges to the 2020 election results."

He added, "The only milestone left in completing the election process will be Congress counting the votes on January 6. The casting of electoral votes will end a hotly contested election, and we should come together as Americans to work together for the future of our country."

https://t.co/hRdFXdPv6Y
— Rep. Bruce Westerman (@Rep. Bruce Westerman)1607737791.0

Another House Republican, Rep. Adam Kinzinger (Ill.) called for West's termination over the statement, tweeting, "I believe @TexasGOP should immediately retract this, apologize, and fire Allen West and anyone else associated with this. My guy Abraham Lincoln and the Union soldiers already told you no."

I believe @TexasGOP should immediately retract this, apologize, and fire Allen West and anyone else associated with… https://t.co/66xcZU90Xh
— Adam Kinzinger (@Adam Kinzinger)1607733853.0

President Donald Trump, Vice President Mike Pence, and their campaign have filed dozens of lawsuits nationwide seeking to overturn what they call a "rigged" election that has been widely called for Democratic nominee Joe Biden by mainstream media. The Trump camp has not been successful in their litigation efforts.

Two cases filed separately by pro-Trump politicians seeking to challenge state election results have now been rejected by the Supreme Court.

Earlier this week, the high court turned down a lawsuit led by Rep. Mike Kelly (R), which sought to reject mail-in ballots filed in his home state of Pennsylvania.

Breaking: Supreme Court denies lawsuit by Texas seeking to nullify election results from 4 states



The Supreme Court put an end to one of the last ditch efforts to overturn the official results of the 2020 election when it said on Friday that it would not hear a lawsuit by the state of Texas.

The order from the Supreme Court was brief and said simply that the plaintiff did not have standing to sue over the manner in which other states run their elections.

The State of Texas's motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.

Justice Alito offered a separate statement, to which Justice Thomas agreed.

In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.

The order likely dooms any legal recourse President Donald Trump has to deny the official results saying former Vice President Joe Biden won the 2020 presidential election.

Here's more about the SCOTUS decision:

Supreme Court rejects Texas' effort to toss out election results in 4 key stateswww.youtube.com

Several more states' AGs offer support for Texas' Supreme Court election lawsuit



Attorneys general in several additional states — Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Missouri — appeared to throw their support behind a lawsuit filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton this week alleging that four battleground states exploited the coronavirus pandemic to make unconstitutional changes to mail-in voting rules.

In the lawsuit filed directly with the Supreme Court late Monday night, Paxton accused officials in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin of "violat[ing] statutes enacted by their duly elected legislatures" in order to allow for increased mail-in balloting, thus violating the equal protections clause and skewing the 2020 election results.

The lawsuit is seeking a delay to the Electoral College vote until investigations into potential election fraud can be completed.

"Their failure to abide by the rule of law casts a dark shadow of doubt over the outcome of the entire election," Paxton stated in a Tuesday news release about the complaint. "We now ask that the Supreme Court step in to correct this egregious error."

Other states are backing Texas

As of Wednesday morning, attorneys general in at least four additional states have expressed support for the lawsuit.

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall seemed to indicate on Twitter that his state would join the suit, if it was granted a hearing by the Supreme Court.

"The unconstitutional and fraudulent votes in other states not only affect the citizens of those states, they affect the citizens of all states — of the entire United States. Every unlawful vote counted, or lawful vote uncounted, debases and dilutes citizens' free exercise of the franchise," he wrote in a statement. "The State of Alabama will continue to pursue any legal remedy available to protect her people from such disenfranchisement."

Here is my statement on the State of Texas’s motion filed with #SCOTUS and the State of Alabama’s commitment to the… https://t.co/8rAeuDdqnH
— Attorney General Steve Marshall (@Attorney General Steve Marshall)1607466001.0

Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge announced after reviewing the lawsuit that she would "support the motion by the State of Texas in all legally appropriate manners."

AG Rutledge Statement on Recent Texas Motion before U.S. Supreme Court https://t.co/QBrLzKe26P
— Leslie Rutledge (@Leslie Rutledge)1607468540.0

Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry also endorsed the lawsuit, noting in a statement that "millions of Louisiana citizens, and tens of millions of our fellow citizens in the country, have deep concerns regarding the conduct of the 2020 federal elections. Deeply rooted in these concerns is the fact that some states appear to have conducted their elections with a disregard to the U.S. Constitution."

"Louisiana citizens are damaged if elections in other states were conducted outside the confines of the Constitution while we obeyed the rules," he added.

Read our full statement regarding the ongoing controversies over the 2020 federal election and the new motion put f… https://t.co/NUL7cFOkIY
— AG Jeff Landry (@AG Jeff Landry)1607460907.0

Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt made no qualms about his state's position, saying plainly, "Missouri is in the fight."

"Election integrity is central to our republic. And I will defend it at every turn. As I have in other cases — I will help lead the effort in support of Texas' #SCOTUS filing today. Missouri is in the fight," Schmitt said in a tweet.

Election integrity is central to our republic. And I will defend it at every turn.As I have in other cases - I w… https://t.co/Q8K5EwGO8I
— Eric Schmitt (@Eric Schmitt)1607483059.0

Anything else?

In his statement of support, Landry, the Louisiana attorney general, also made mention of a filing he and attorneys general from nine other states submitted last month that petitioned the Supreme Court to look into Pennsylvania's election conduct.

"In states like Pennsylvania, the judicial branch attempted to seize control of these duties and obligations and to set their own rules. These actions appear to be unconstitutional," he wrote. "If it is unconstitutional for Pennsylvania to take this action, it is similarly unconstitutional for other states to have done the same."

This filing is wholly separate from Texas' most recent filing, but nonetheless has been confused with the Texas filing by some on social media.