Rogue Jurist Questions Executive Action on Immigration

"A federal judge in Pittsburgh ruled Tuesday that President Barack Obama overstepped his authority and violated the Constitution when he issued an executive order last month to delay deportation for millions of people living in the U.S. illegally. In an opinion issued in a local case of a Honduran man who illegally re-entered the country, U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Schwab said the president cannot use his executive powers to bypass Congress. The judge, who was appointed to the bench by former President George W. Bush, said the president’s order in November amounts to “unilateral legislative action” and is unconstitutional. “Congress’ lawmaking power is not subject to presidential supervision or control,” the judge wrote in a 38-page opinion that quickly made its way to national news websites. ... Although the opinion doesn't direct the government to take any action and would seem limited to the local case, it was quickly denounced by the U.S. Department of Justice. “The decision is unfounded and the court had no basis to issue such an order,” a Department of Justice spokesperson said. “No party in the case challenged the constitutionality of the immigration-related executive actions and the department’s filing made it clear that the executive actions did not apply to the criminal matter before the court. Moreover, the court’s analysis of the legality of the executive actions is flatly wrong. We will respond to the court’s decision at the appropriate time.” [M]any legal observers took Judge Schwab to task, with some saying he was wrong to even solicit briefs on an issue that neither party raised. David Leopold, former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said the judge improperly inserted himself into a national debate when he had no business doing so because the Juarez-Escobar case is a criminal matter. “It’s shocking that a federal judge would use an unrelated criminal case to take it upon himself to declare the lawful, discretionary decisions of a sitting president unconstitutional,” he said in a statement. “I’m confident that this ill-advised and poorly reasoned opinion will be corrected by the [3rd Circuit] Court of Appeals.” " - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Dec. 16, 2014.