15-674 United States V. Texas; Amicus Brief for Maricopa County
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
No. 15-674 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Petitioners, v. STATE OF TEXAS, et al., Respondents. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- On Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Fifth Circuit --------------------------------- --------------------------------- AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF MARICOPA COUNTY ARIZONA SHERIFF, JOSEPH M. ARPAIO, IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENTS --------------------------------- --------------------------------- LARRY KLAYMAN, ESQ. Counsel of Record FREEDOM WATCH, INC. 2020 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 345 Washington, D.C. 20006 (310) 595-0800 Email: [email protected] Attorney for Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio April 4, 2016 ================================================================ COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964 WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................... iii INTRODUCTION ................................................... 1 INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ........................ 2 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................ 4 ARGUMENT ........................................................... 6 I. OVERVIEW .................................................. 6 II. RESPONDENTS’ “DEFERRED ACTION” VIOLATES “TAKE CARE” CLAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION, Art. II, § 3 ............. 7 A. Congress Has Expressly Restricted the Executive Branch’s Exercise of Discre- tion ......................................................... 8 B. Executive Branch Admits that Peti- tioners Cannot Rewrite Statutes by De- ferred Action .......................................... 9 C. Facts Not in Evidence: Congress Not Appropriating Funds Does Not Em- power Petitioners to Rewrite the Stat- ute .......................................................... 11 D. Facts Not in Evidence: Local Law En- forcement, not the Federal Government, Locate Deportable Foreign Citizens for Deportation ............................................ 15 E. Petitioners Do Not Point to any “Gap,” Ambiguity, or Uncertainty in the Stat- ute Requiring Exercise of Delegated Law-Making Authority .......................... 16 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS – Continued Page III. A STATE VOLUNTARILY PROVIDING A SUBSIDY TO BENEFICIARIES HAS AR- TICLE III STANDING................................. 17 A. D.C. Circuit Judge Janice Rogers Brown Warns of Need to Reform Standing ...... 18 B. Precedents on Standing Were Modified by Massachusetts v. Environmental Pro- tection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) ...... 22 CONCLUSION ....................................................... 23 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page CASES Adams v. Richardson, 480 F.2d 1159 (D.C. Cir. 1973) ........................................................................ 10 Arpaio v. Obama, 27 F. Supp. 3d 185 (D.D.C. 2014) .......................................................................... 2 Arpaio v. Obama, 797 F.3d 11 (D.C. Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 900 (2016) (Case No. 15-643) ................................................................. 2, 18 City of Los Angeles v. Adams, 556 F.2d 40 (D.C. Cir. 1977) ................................................................. 14 Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) ........... 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 Nat’l Ass’n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644 (2007) .................................. 10 Texas v. United States, 787 F.3d 733 (5th Cir. May 26, 2015) (Appeal No. 15-40238) ................ 6, 20 Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. November 9, 2015) (Appeal No. 15-40238) .............. 6 TVA v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 98 S.Ct. 2279, 57 L.Ed.2d 117 (1978) .................................................. 14 Wayman v. Southard, 23 U.S. (10 Wheat.) 1 (1825) ....................................................................... 17 Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) ........................................................ 10 iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued Page STATUTES 6 U.S.C. § 202(5) ........................................................... 8 8 U.S.C. §§ 1227, 1229a, 1231 ...................................... 9 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(a)(3) ............................................... 5, 8 Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, 31 U.S.C. § 1101, et seq. .......................................................... 13 Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 (as amended) (“INA”) .................................. 15, 16, 17 RULES Rule 37.3 of the Rules of the Supreme Court .............. 1 OTHER AUTHORITIES Budget information submitted to Congress by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “DHS Budget,” http://www.dhs.gov/dhs-budget ....... 13 1 GAO, Principles of Federal Appropriations Law (3d ed. 2004) .................................................... 15 OMB Circular No. A-11 (2014) Section 15: Ba- sic Budget Laws ...................................................... 13 Presidential Authority to Decline to Execute Unconstitutional Statutes, 18 Op. O.L.C. 199 (1994) ....................................................................... 11 “State Population by Rank, 2013”, InfoPlease ............ 1 2010 U.S. Census, April 1, 2010 ................................... 2 v TABLE OF AUTHORITIES – Continued Page U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, “The Department of Homeland Security’s Au- thority to Prioritize Removal of Certain Aliens Unlawfully Present in the United States and to Defer Removal of Others,” Nov. 19, 2014 ............................................................... 9, 10, 12 1 INTRODUCTION1 This brief supports the Respondents, who are twenty-six (26) states who are plaintiffs below. Pursuant to Rule 37.3 of the Rules of the Su- preme Court, the parties have given their consent to the filing of this amicus curiae brief, the Petitioners by their blanket consent filed by Solicitor General Donald B. Verilli, Jr., on March 2, 2016, and the Re- spondents by J. Campbell Barker of the Office of the Attorney General of Texas, the attorney designated by the Respondents to respond to requests for consent to file amicus curiae briefs. Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio (“Sheriff Arpaio”) re- spectfully submits this amicus curiae brief in his role as the elected Sheriff and head of the Maricopa County Sheriff ’s Office (“MCSO”). Arizona’s Maricopa County has four (4) million residents.2 Maricopa County would be larger than twenty-two (22) States if it were a State and is larger than twelve (12) of the plaintiff states here: Mississippi, Maine, Kansas, Oklahoma, West Virginia, Arkansas, Nebraska, Utah, 1 The parties have consented to the filing of this brief. No counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in part, and no counsel or party made a monetary contribution intended to fund the preparation of submission of this brief. No person other than amicus curiae, its members, or it counsel made a monetary contribution to its preparation or submission. 2 “State Population by Rank, 2013”, InfoPlease, http:// www.infoplease.com/us/states/population-by-rank.html 2 Idaho, Montana, South Dakota, and North Dakota, according to the 2010 U.S. Census, April 1, 2010.3 With great respect for this Court, Sheriff Arpaio submits that this Court should affirm the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s (“Fifth Circuit”) de- cision upholding a preliminary injunction requested by the Respondents, including finding standing. --------------------------------- --------------------------------- INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE Sheriff Arpaio filed a related case on November 20, 2014, though also challenging the Petitioners’ ear- lier June 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”), as well as the Petitioners’ November 20, 2014, expansion of that earlier program. Arpaio v. Obama, 27 F. Supp. 3d 185 (D.D.C. 2014), affirmed, Arpaio v. Obama, 797 F.3d 11 (D.C. Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 900 (2016) (Case No. 15-643). Here, in the proceedings below in the Fifth Cir- cuit, the Petitioners relied upon arguing about Sheriff Arpaio’s own case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (“D.C. Circuit”). Brief for the Petitioners, Fifth Circuit, Appeal No. 15-40238, pages 7, 44, 50, 53. Indeed, before the Supreme Court now, the Petitioners again cite to and rely upon Arpaio v. Obama. Brief for the Petitioners, March 1, 2016, page 44. 3 Accessible at: http://censtats.census.gov/usa/usa.shtml 3 Because the Petitioners here incorporated Sheriff Arpaio’s case into their arguments and briefs in the courts below and also here, amicus curiae Arpaio has a significant interest. Moreover, Sheriff Arpaio has insights and experi- ences pertinent to this appeal with which he is able to respectfully assist the Court. Joe Arpaio has been the Sheriff elected by the voters of Maricopa County since 1993. He has worked as a federal narcotics agent, successfully infiltrat- ing drug organizations from Turkey to the Middle East to Mexico and Central and South America, and in cities around the United States. His expertise led him to top management positions around the world with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Admini- stration (DEA). He served as head of the DEA for Arizona. Maricopa County is significantly affected by citi- zens from other countries trespassing across the na- tion’s southern border, rather than entering at official border crossings, and transiting through or residing