BOB UNRUH 

A federal judge who last winter ordered a halt to President Obama’s de facto amnesty and then ordered federal officials to testify when they were found to be in violation of his injunction is relenting, just a little.

U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen said Tuesday he will release certain defendants from testifying, but he warned that he expects the federal government to comply with his order to stop its delayed-deportation program before an Aug. 19 hearing.

Fully.

“The court does not consider mere substantial compliance, after an order has been in place for six months, to be acceptable and neither should counsel,” Hanen wrote in his newest order in a case brought by 26 states.

Hanen’s injunction disrupted Obama’s plan to delay deportation for up to 5 million illegal aliens under a 2014 initiative called Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, or DAPA.

DAPA would offer three-year work permits to illegal aliens who have been in the United States since 2010 and have children who are American citizens or lawful permanent residents. The Obama administration, in compliance with Hanen’s order, apparently hasn’t enacted that provision. But when the federal government began carrying out a DAPA provision that changes a 2012 program called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, Hanen reacted. The provision extends a two-year reprieve on deportation to three years, and federal government lawyers granted the extra year to 100,000 applicants, prompting a rebuke from Hanen.

Hanen’s new order releases “individual defendants,” including Department of Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, from an order to testify, but he said he still has concerns about illegal aliens who have “credentials issued in violation of the court’s injunction.”

The government “needs to be prepared to discuss the reasons that these individuals are not in compliance,” Hanen ordered, “the steps the government has taken and will continue to take to achieve complete compliance and the time table to achieve that goal in the very near future.”

It was Feb. 16 when Hanen granted a preliminary injunction to the 26 states that sued Obama for changing immigration law through executive action rather than by proposing legislation to Congress.

Government attorneys now are attempting to satisfy the judge, explaining they are trying to fetch the documents they issued that were in violation of the his order.

The change in attitude is in sharp contrast to previous reactions from the administration.

Shortly after the judge’s order, the Washington Times reported Cecilia Munoz, White House domestic policy director, addressed the issue: “It’s important to put [Hanen's order] in context, because the broader executive actions are moving forward. The administration continues to implement the portions of the actions that the president and the Department of Homeland Security took, which were not affected by the court’s ruling.”

But Hanen’s original order had said: “The United States of America, its departments, agencies, officers, agents and employees and Jeh Johnson, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; R. Gil Kerlikowske, commissioner of United States customs and Border Protection; Ronald D. Vitiello, deputy chief of United States Border Patrol, United States Customs and Border Protection; Thomas S. Winkowski, acting director of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and Leon Rodriguez, director of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services are hereby enjoined from implementing any and all aspects or phases of the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents.”

And even Obama himself said the Constitution barred him from acting alone.

House Speaker John Boehner has listed 22 times when Obama has made such statements.

For example, in October 2010, Obama said: “I am president, I am not king. I can’t do these things just by myself. … I’ve got to have some partners to do it. … If Congress has laws on the books that says that people who are here who are not documented have to be deported, then I can exercise some flexibility in terms of where we deploy our resources, to focus on people who are really causing problems as opposed to families who are just trying to work and support themselves. But there’s a limit to the discretion that I can show because I am obliged to execute the law. … I can’t just make the laws up by myself.”

‘Unilateral legislative action’

Hanen’s ruling marks the second time federal courts have ruled against Obama’s amnesty actions. WND reported the ruling of a federal court in Pennsylvania.

“President Obama’s unilateral legislative action violates the separation of powers provided for in the United States Constitution as well as the Take Care Clause and, therefore, is unconstitutional,” said U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Schwab.

The judge noted Obama “contended that although legislation is the most appropriate course of action to solve the immigration debate, his executive action was necessary because of Congress’ failure to pass legislation, acceptable to him, in this regard.”

“This proposition is arbitrary and does not negate the requirement that the November 20, 2014, executive action be lawfully within the president’s executive authority,” the judge wrote. “It is not.”

Hanen had told the administration officials to show up in his court after discovering they had gone ahead with the immigration program despite his order.

The judge wrote: “The court was first apprised by the government of the violations of its injunction on May 7, 2015. It admitted that it violated this court’s injunction on at least 2,000 occasions – violations which have not yet been fixed. This court has expressed its willingness to believe that these actions were accidental and not done purposefully to violate this court’s order. Nevertheless, it is shocked and surprised at the cavalier attitude the government has taken with regard to its ‘efforts’ to rectify this situation. The government promised this court on May 7, 2015, that ‘immediate steps’ were being taken to remedy the violations of the injunction. Yet, as of June 23, 2015 – some six weeks after making that representation – the situation had not been rectified.”

He warned, “At some point, when a non-compliant party refuses to bring its conduct into compliance, one must conclude that the conduct is not accidental, but deliberate.”

The case against Obama’s plan is pending before the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. But the courts have refused to overturn Hanen’s injunction and allow Obama’s immigration amnesty to move forward pending a resolution.

A panel of three judges at the appeals court said Obama’s plan “makes aliens who were not otherwise qualified for federal public benefits eligible for ‘social security retirement benefits, security disability benefits, [and] health insurance under Part A of the Medicare program.’”

“Further, ‘each person who applies for deferred action pursuant to the [DAPA] criteria … shall also be eligible to apply for work authorization for the [renewable three-year] period of deferred action.’”

Such procedures would allow illegal aliens to “‘obtain a Social Security Number,’ ‘accrue quarters of covered employment,’ and ‘correct wage records to add prior covered employment,’” the opinion said.

It warned that should the program ultimately struck down, the illegal aliens who participated would have benefited improperly.

The injunction, the appeals judges said, preserves the status quo.

Hanen previously expressed frustration with the government for failing to inform him that officials also had given deferred action to 108,000 applicants shortly after Obama announced his plan in November.

“The court expects all parties, including the government of the United States, to act in a forthright manner and not hide behind deceptive representations and half-truths,” Hanen wrote.

At one point, WND reported, Hanen bluntly asked a Justice Department attorney whether or not President Obama and federal officials can be believed.

“I can trust what Secretary [Jeh] Johnson says … what President Obama says?” Hanen asked, the Los Angeles Times reported.

Fox News reported the judge even went further, instructing Justice Department attorney Kathleen Hartnett, “That’s a yes or no question.”

She responded, “Yes, your honor.”

The Texas lawsuit, joined by 25 other states, was filed when the states suddenly faced massive new demands for public services such as schooling and health care from foreigners who previously had been subject to deportation.