要跳Clarins 在macy's 的GWP了，问个问题先# Fashion - 美丽时尚
f*a
1 楼
WASHINGTON — A federal judge in Texas on Tuesday angrily denied the federal
government’s request to allow President Obama’s immigration executive
actions to proceed, even as an appeals court signaled that it might disagree
with the judge when it takes the issue up next week.
Judge Andrew S. Hanen, of Federal District Court for the Southern District
of Texas, in Brownsville, refused late Tuesday night to lift the injunction
he had placed in February on the president’s immigration program, saying
that to do so would cause irreparable harm.
The judge concluded that he “remained convinced” that the president
exceeded his authority by seeking to allow millions of undocumented
immigrants to stay in the country legally and obtain work permits. He said
the actions violated administrative procedures for creating new programs and
should not be allowed to go forward while courts consider their legality.
Continue reading the main story
Related Coverage
States Are Divided by the Lines They Draw on ImmigrationMARCH 29, 2015
Administration Asks Court to Lift Order Halting Immigration ProgramsMARCH 12
, 2015
Administration to Try to Block Ruling That Postpones Immigration ActionsFEB.
20, 2015
He also angrily chided Justice Department lawyers, accusing them of lying to
him about whether any part of the president’s executive actions were
already being carried out. He wrote that the lawyers assured him that the
program was not yet active, even though some immigrants were already
receiving longer renewals of their protected status under the new executive
actions.
“Whether by ignorance, omission, purposeful misdirection, or because they
were misled by their clients, the attorneys for the government
misrepresented the facts,” Judge Hanen wrote in his ruling.
“Fabrications, misstatements, half-truths, artful omissions and the failure
to correct misstatements may be acceptable, albeit lamentable, in other
aspects of life,” he wrote. “But in the courtroom, when an attorney knows
that both the court and the other side are relying on complete frankness,
such conduct is unacceptable.”
government’s request to allow President Obama’s immigration executive
actions to proceed, even as an appeals court signaled that it might disagree
with the judge when it takes the issue up next week.
Judge Andrew S. Hanen, of Federal District Court for the Southern District
of Texas, in Brownsville, refused late Tuesday night to lift the injunction
he had placed in February on the president’s immigration program, saying
that to do so would cause irreparable harm.
The judge concluded that he “remained convinced” that the president
exceeded his authority by seeking to allow millions of undocumented
immigrants to stay in the country legally and obtain work permits. He said
the actions violated administrative procedures for creating new programs and
should not be allowed to go forward while courts consider their legality.
Continue reading the main story
Related Coverage
States Are Divided by the Lines They Draw on ImmigrationMARCH 29, 2015
Administration Asks Court to Lift Order Halting Immigration ProgramsMARCH 12
, 2015
Administration to Try to Block Ruling That Postpones Immigration ActionsFEB.
20, 2015
He also angrily chided Justice Department lawyers, accusing them of lying to
him about whether any part of the president’s executive actions were
already being carried out. He wrote that the lawyers assured him that the
program was not yet active, even though some immigrants were already
receiving longer renewals of their protected status under the new executive
actions.
“Whether by ignorance, omission, purposeful misdirection, or because they
were misled by their clients, the attorneys for the government
misrepresented the facts,” Judge Hanen wrote in his ruling.
“Fabrications, misstatements, half-truths, artful omissions and the failure
to correct misstatements may be acceptable, albeit lamentable, in other
aspects of life,” he wrote. “But in the courtroom, when an attorney knows
that both the court and the other side are relying on complete frankness,
such conduct is unacceptable.”
