A federal judge has agreed to delay the sanctions he ordered against the Obama administration for misleading his court about the implementation dates for executive amnesty.
In a single-page order issued Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen — the federal judge who initially blocked President Obama’s executive amnesty programs — stayed his previous order requiring Justice Department lawyers to undergo ethics training and turn over the immigration records of tens of thousands of illegal immigrants who benefited from the government’s implementation date snafus.
Hanen issued the order on May 19 in response to what he said was “intentional, serious and material” misconduct on the part of Justice Department lawyers in the case of United States v. Texas — 26 states’ challenge to Obama’s executive amnesty programs Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) and expanded Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) — now pending before the Supreme Court.
According to Hanen, the government intentionally mislead his court about when it would begin approving applications for expanded DACA and then failed to stop approving expanded DACA applications even after his initial injunction.
The Justice Department and immigration activists protested the May 19 order saying that Hanen exceeded his authority when he mandated ethics training for some 3,000 government lawyers. They further decried Hanen’s call for a sealed list of the illegal immigrants who benefited from the government’s decision to begin implementing expanded DACA before the set date.
In his Tuesday order, Hanen delayed the sanctions pending a hearing set for August 22.
“The Court orders the parties to appear for a status conference before it on August 22, 2016 at 11 a.m. The Court hereby stays its order of May 19, 2016 [Doc. No. 347] pending the outcome of that hearing and furthermore stays all proceedings on the merits per the outcome of that hearing,” the order, posted at SCOTUS Blog, reads.
Hanen also offered the Justice Department the opportunity to offer any evidence in response to the allegations of intentional mendacity that led to the sanctions in his May 19 order and “any “submission they wish as to an appropriate sanction for the misrepresentations.”