Andrew S. Hanen

Andrew S. Hanen
Judge for the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
Incumbent
Assumed office
May 10, 2002
Nominated by George W. Bush
Preceded by Filemon Vela, Sr.
Personal details
Born Andrew Scott Hanen
December 10, 1953[1]
Elgin, Illinois
Alma mater Denison University (1975)
Baylor Law School (1978)

Andrew Scott Hanen (born December 10, 1953) is a United States federal judge.

Early Life

Hanen was born in Elgin, Illinois, but was raised in Waco, Texas. He received a B.A., with honors, from Denison University in 1975 and a J.D. from Baylor Law School in 1978, where he graduated first in his class. He was a briefing attorney to the Hon. Joe Greenhill, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas, from 1978 to 1979.[2]

Life at Bar

He was in private practice in Houston, Texas from 1979 to 2002.[2]

In 1992, Hanen was nominated by President George H. W. Bush to be a United States District Judge, but the nomination lapsed.[2]

On January 23, 2002, he was again nominated by President George W. Bush to a seat on the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas vacated by Filemon Vela, Sr. Hanen was confirmed by a 97-0 vote of the United States Senate on May 9, 2002,[3] and received his commission on May 10, 2002.

Life as Judge

The Hanen court is in Brownsville, Texas.[4]

State of Texas, et al. v. United States of America, et al. (Civil No. 1-14-CV-254)

The case deals with a set of executive actions taken on 20 November 2014 by President Obama,[5][6] in the memorandum of the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, Jeh Johnson.[7] The lawsuit against the actions was filed on 3 December,[8][7] and an amended claim was filed on 9 December.[9] Then-Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, who has since become the state's governor, filed the lawsuit. The current Texas attorney general, Ken Paxton, has continued the effort.[5]

On 26 January 2015, the deputy director of digital content for the White House's Office of Digital Strategy, Tanya Somanader, produced a full-color map to help shape the public debate.[10] The White House Council of Economic Advisers estimated the GDP also projected a "plausible upper-bound projection, based on the more optimistic estimates in the economic literature" that the country's GDP could increase by 0.9 percent under the executive actions.[5]

On 16 February 2015, Justice Hanen blocked a controversial executive order signed by President Barack Obama that would have given Illegal immigrants legal status and protection and let them apply for work permits.[11][12][13] The Plaintiffs included: the State of Texas; State of Alabama; State of Arizona; State of Arkansas; State of Florida; State of Georgia; State of Idaho; State of Indiana; State of Kansas; State of Louisiana; State of Montana; State of Nebraska; State of North Dakota; State of Ohio; State of Oklahoma; State of South Carolina; State of South Dakota; State of Utah; State of West Virginia; State of Wisconsin; Attorney General Bill Schuette, People of Michigan; Governor Phil Bryant, State of Mississippi; Governor Paul R. LePage, State of Maine; Governor Patrick L. McCrory, State of North Carolina; and Governor C. L. “Butch” Otter, State of Idaho.[14] On 28 January, the States of Tennessee and Nevada had been added in an Amended Complaint.[14][15]

The U.S. government on 23 February asked Hanen to lift his injunction while it appealed his ruling to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans,[16] and threatened him that they would go over his head to seek relief.[17] The DOJ filing asked the court to respond by 25 February.[18] At the same time, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest noted that while a majority of states had sued the Obama administration, 12 states and Washington, D.C. filed a brief in support of the administration’s executive amnesty program.[19][20] A map of the conflict as it stood on 16 February can be found at The Hill.[21] The Obama administration also proposed that Hanen issue a partial stay that would allow every state except for Texas to start implementing Obama’s executive amnesty.[19][17]

On 3 March 2015, the DOJ filed an “Advisory” with the court, notifying it that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services had granted three-year periods of deferred action to 108,081 individuals between the publishing of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Directive on 24 November 2014 implementing Obama’s executive action and Judge Hanen’s injunction order on 16 February 2015.[22][23] This directly contradicted earlier statements made to the court by DOJ that no applications would be accepted prior to 18 February 2015, nor decisions on such applications would be made prior to 4 March 2015.[24] The states responded by requesting an Opposed Motion for Early Discovery, alleging misrepresentation by the DOJ attorneys as well as DHS officials who are named as defendants in the case concerning when and how parts of the DHS directive would be implemented.[25]

On 13 March, Justice Hanen held a supplementary hearing on the DOJ advisory at which Angela Colmonero from the Texas Attorney General's office protested the defendants’ renewal of deferred action permits for an expanded term of not two but three years under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. During the hearings leading to an injunction handed down by Hanen, attorneys with the Department of Justice had claimed that if an injunction was filed nothing would be done. Colmonero said that the Federal Department of Justice (DOJ) informed the Court 15 days after the injunction had been granted, that the Department of Homeland Security had issued the expanded permits that were promised by the President in his November speech. The permits issued by the U.S. Government are a violation of the injunction. Hanen was displeased by DOJ attorney Kathleen Hardeck: “When I asked you what would happen and you said nothing I took it to heart,” Hanen said. “I was made to look like an idiot. I believed your word that nothing would happen.”[26]

In an opinion and order published on 7 April 2015, Judge Hanen responded to the Government’s request to stay his temporary injunction order of 16 February. He denied the DOJ request, covering the DOJ’s grounds for the motion point by point.[27] He affirmed his earlier ruling that the plaintiff states had standing;[28] cited statements made by President Obama regarding the applicability of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) that DHS employees would “suffer consequences” if they failed to follow the DHS Directive;[29] cited case law to deny the DOJ request to apply the injunction only to Texas;[30] and addressed the issue of irreparable harm both in regards to the federal government and to the states. [31]

Also published on 7 April was Judge Hanen’s order addressing the states’ request for an Opposed Motion for Early Discovery, regarding the plaintiffs’ allegation that the DOJ and DHS had made misrepresentations to the court during the initial injunction hearing concerning when and how parts of the DHS directive would be implemented.[32] Judge Hanen sided with the plaintiffs, taking the defendants to task for “the multiple representations made by the Government’s counsel” that no action would be taken by DHS prior to 18 February 2015.[22] He went on to cite from the court record instances where DOJ attorneys stated to the court in writing in the Advisory and also orally that no action would be taken enforcing the DHS Directive prior to 18 February.[33]

In a sharp rebuke to DOJ counsel, Judge Hanen stated that, “Whether by ignorance, omission, purposeful misdirection, or because they were misled by their clients, the attorneys for the Government misrepresented the facts.”[34] He pointed out that DOJ counsel urged him to rule before they had disclosed that DHS had already begun actions under the DHS Directive, despite their knowledge to the contrary.[35] He proceeded to cite from the Rules of Professional Conduct of the American Bar Association and the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, and chastised defense counsel saying, “Fabrications, misstatements, half-truths, artful omissions, and the failure to correct misstatements may be acceptable, albeit lamentable, in other aspects of life; 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.”[36] Judge Hanen reserved the right to impose sanctions against DOJ counsel pending the results of the directed discovery,[37] then directed the defendants to provide complete records of all drafts of the 3 March 2015 Advisory, including metadata and a list of all persons aware of the Advisory and when they were aware of it. He further enjoined the defendants from destroying or erasing any documents relating to it, whether in hard copy, electronic records, or storage devices.[38]

Appeals Court

On 12 March, the Obama administration filed the threatened appeal in New Orleans.[39] The Justice Department asked the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for an emergency "immediate stay" against U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen of the Southern District Of Texas' Brownsville Division; the Obama administration had instructed Hanen with a 9 March deadline to lift his temporary injunction decision, saying that the injunction undermined its authority, and disrupted its "comprehensive effort to effectively allocate limited enforcement resources." The appeal offered two options for the Fifth Circuit of Appeals to consider. The first is to lift the temporary injunction entirely across the 50 states or, second, at least for the 24 states not participating in the lawsuit.[40]

The Appeal attracted an amicus curiae brief in support from the State of Washington et al., which was submitted on 12 March as well.[41]

On 18 March, certain Members of Congress et al.--amongst whom were Senator Ted Cruz, Senator John Cornyn, Representative Bob Goodlatte and Representative Lamar Smith--filed an amicus brief in support of the Plaintiffs. Their position was to "maintain the status quo preserved by the preliminary injunction," because "issuing the stay will substantially harm the Appellees and runs counter to public interests."[42]

On 23 March, the Plaintiffs-Appellees rebutted the Appeal.[43]

On 23 March, Texas Governor Greg Abbott filed--along with the Governors of Louisiana, New Jersey, and South Dakota--an amicus curiae brief with the Court of Appeal, concluding that "Defendants’ motion for a stay should be denied."[44] Abbott said in a statement accompanying the brief that “President Obama and his lawyers have shown an alarming lack of respect for the rule of law throughout this entire judicial process. I expect their request for a stay to be denied so these proceedings can continue, and I am confident the case will ultimately result in victory not only for the State of Texas, but also for the Constitution of the United States.”[45] The addition of New Jersey brought to 27 the number of States that were opposed to the executive amnesty. [46]

The appeals court on April 17 was to hear arguments on whether it should lift the temporary hold so that the program can proceed while the lawsuit continues.[46]

References

  1. ↑ "Andrew Scott Hanen". The Complete Marquis Who's Who Biographies. Accessed February 17, 2015 via LexisNexis.
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2
  3. ↑ "United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Judicial Nominations and Confirmations: 107th Congress". https://web.archive.org/web/20131107173920/http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/nominations/107thCongress.cfm''.
  4. ↑ txs.uscourts.gov: "United States District Judge Andrew S. Hanen"
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 latinpost.com: "Immigration Reform News Update: 26 States File Lawsuit to Stop President's Actions Despite Expected GDP Growth", 2 Feb 2015
  6. ↑ uscis.gov: "Executive Actions on Immigration"
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 texasattorneygeneral.gov: "COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF", 3 Dec 2014
  8. ↑ ibtimes.com: "Federal Judge Blocks Obama's Executive Action On Immigration Until Lawsuit From 26 States Is Resolved", 17 Feb 2015
  9. ↑ texasattorneygeneral.gov: "AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF", 9 Dec 2014
  10. ↑ whitehouse.gov: "Map: Here's How the President's Actions on Immigration Will Impact Your State", 26 Jan 2015
  11. ↑ Barbash, Fred (February 17, 2015) - "Federal Judge in Texas Blocks Obama Immigration Orders". The Washington Post. Retrieved February 24, 2015.
  12. ↑ Preston, Julia & Shear, Michael (February 17, 2015) - "Dealt Setback, Obama Puts Off Immigrant Plan". The New York Times. Retrieved February 24, 2015.
  13. ↑ Kalhan, Anil (February 21, 2015). "Is Judge Hanen's Smackdown of Executive Action on Immigration "Narrowly Crafted"?". Dorf on Law. Retrieved March 21, 2015.
  14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 txs.uscourts.gov: "Case 1-14-cv-254 Document 145: Memorandum Opinion and Order", 16 Feb 2015
  15. ↑ latinpost.com: "Immigration Executive Action Lawsuit Update: Nevada Joins Opposition Despite Growing Latino Population", 28 Jan 2015
  16. ↑ dallasnews.com: "26-state coalition, led by Texas, asks judge to not lift stay in immigration lawsuit", 4 Mar 2015
  17. ↑ 17.0 17.1 cmgdigital.com: "Case 1:14-cv-00254 Document 150 - DEFENDANTS’ EMERGENCY EXPEDITED MOTION TO STAY THE COURT’S FEBRUARY 16, 2015 ORDER PENDING APPEAL AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM", 23 Feb 2015
  18. ↑ "State of Texas, et al v. United States of America, et al" (PDF). Southern District of Texas ~ Notable Cases Information Document 226: 8. 7 April 2015. Retrieved 10 April 2015.
  19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 breitbart.com: "Obama Admin Proposes Compromise to Judge: Let Every State Except Texas Implement Exec Amnesty", 23 Feb 2015
  20. ↑ cis.org: "STATES’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PARTICIPATE AS AMICI CURIAE AND BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION", 12 Jan 2015
  21. ↑ thehill.com: "25 states sue Obama over amnesty, but some states are silent", 16 Feb 2015
  22. ↑ 22.0 22.1 "State of Texas, et al v. United States of America, et al" (PDF). Southern District of Texas ~ Notable Cases Information Document 226: 3. 7 April 2015. Retrieved 10 April 2015.
  23. ↑ "State of Texas, et al v. United States of America, et al" (PDF). Southern District of Texas ~ Notable Cases Information Document 225: 2. 7 April 2015. Retrieved 10 April 2015.
  24. ↑ "State of Texas, et al v. United States of America, et al" (PDF). Southern District of Texas ~ Notable Cases Information Document 226: 2. 7 April 2015. Retrieved 10 April 2015.
  25. ↑ "State of Texas, et al v. United States of America, et al" (PDF). Southern District of Texas ~ Notable Cases Information Document 226: 1. 7 April 2015. Retrieved 10 April 2015.
  26. ↑ breitbart.com: "Federal Judge Admonished DOJ Over Apparent Deception: ‘I Was Made to Look like an Idiot’", 19 Mar 2015
  27. ↑ "State of Texas, et al v. United States of America, et al" (PDF). Southern District of Texas ~ Notable Cases Information Document 225: 15. 7 April 2015. Retrieved 10 April 2015.
  28. ↑ "State of Texas, et al v. United States of America, et al" (PDF). Southern District of Texas ~ Notable Cases Information Document 225: 3–7. 7 April 2015. Retrieved 10 April 2015.
  29. ↑ "State of Texas, et al v. United States of America, et al" (PDF). Southern District of Texas ~ Notable Cases Information Document 225: 7–11. 7 April 2015. Retrieved 10 April 2015.
  30. ↑ "State of Texas, et al v. United States of America, et al" (PDF). Southern District of Texas ~ Notable Cases Information Document 225: 11–12. 7 April 2015. Retrieved 10 April 2015.
  31. ↑ "State of Texas, et al v. United States of America, et al" (PDF). Southern District of Texas ~ Notable Cases Information Document 225: 13–14. 7 April 2015. Retrieved 10 April 2015.
  32. ↑ "State of Texas, et al v. United States of America, et al" (PDF). Southern District of Texas ~ Notable Cases Information Document 225: 2–3. 7 April 2015. Retrieved 10 April 2015.
  33. ↑ "State of Texas, et al v. United States of America, et al" (PDF). Southern District of Texas ~ Notable Cases Information Document 226: 2–10. 7 April 2015. Retrieved 10 April 2015.
  34. ↑ "State of Texas, et al v. United States of America, et al" (PDF). Southern District of Texas ~ Notable Cases Information Document 226: 6. 7 April 2015. Retrieved 10 April 2015.
  35. ↑ "State of Texas, et al v. United States of America, et al" (PDF). Southern District of Texas ~ Notable Cases Information Document 226: 9. 7 April 2015. Retrieved 10 April 2015.
  36. ↑ "State of Texas, et al v. United States of America, et al" (PDF). Southern District of Texas ~ Notable Cases Information Document 226: 10. 7 April 2015. Retrieved 10 April 2015.
  37. ↑ "State of Texas, et al v. United States of America, et al" (PDF). Southern District of Texas ~ Notable Cases Information Document 226: 11. 7 April 2015. Retrieved 10 April 2015.
  38. ↑ "State of Texas, et al v. United States of America, et al" (PDF). Southern District of Texas ~ Notable Cases Information Document 226: 11–12. 7 April 2015. Retrieved 10 April 2015.
  39. ↑ justice.gov: "Case: 15-40238, Document: 00512966899 - APPELLANTS’ EMERGENCY MOTIONFOR STAY PENDING APPEAL", 12 Mar 2015
  40. ↑ latinpost.com: "Immigration Executive Action Lawsuit: Justice Department Officially Files Appeal Against Texas Lawsuit", 13 Mar 2015
  41. ↑ oag.ca.gov: "Case: 15-40238, Document: 00512967126 - BRIEF OF THE AMICUS STATES OF WASHINGTON, CALIFORNIA, CONNECTICUT, DELAWARE, HAWAI’I, ILLINOIS, IOWA, MARYLAND, MASSACHUSETTS, NEW MEXICO, NEW YORK, OREGON, RHODE ISLAND, AND VERMONT, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO STAY DISTRICT COURT PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION", 12 Mar 2015
  42. ↑ judiciary.house.gov: "AMICI CURIAE BRIEF OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, THE AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW & JUSTICE, AND THE COMMITTEE TO DEFEND THE SEPARATION OF POWERS IN OPPOSITION TO APPELLANTS’ EMERGENCY MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL", 18 Mar 2015
  43. ↑ 600camp.com: "Case: 15-40238, Document: 00512979037 - PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL", 23 March 2015
  44. ↑ gov.texas.gov: "AMICI CURIAE BRIEF FOR THE GOVERNORS OF TEXAS, LOUISIANA, NEW JERSEY, AND SOUTH DAKOTA IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES AND DENIAL OF STAY", 23 Mar 2015
  45. ↑ setexasrecord.com: "Abbott asks 5th Circuit to deny Obama’s motion to stay order halting immigration action", 24 Mar 2015
  46. ↑ 46.0 46.1 bloomberg.com: "Chris Christie Joins States' Obama Immigration Fight", 25 Mar 2015

External links