Kimberly Stawbridge Robinson (no relation to Curtis) wrote a solid overview of Crane v. Johnson–Mississippi’s challenge to DACA–which the 5th Circuit recently tossed on standing grounds. I am quoted in a few spot:
Tipping Its Hat. Josh Blackman, who filed an amicus brief with The Cato Institute supporting the state in the Texas case, said that the Mississippi and Texas cases ‘‘are quite different.’’
Blackman, a law professor at the South Texas Col- lege of Law, Houston, told Bloomberg BNA via e-mail April 8 that the Mississippi ‘‘case was filed in 2012 shortly after DACA was implemented. To show stand- ing, [Mississippi] relied on an outdated 2006 report on the effect of illegal immigration on the state.’’
The Fifth Circuit said that was insufficient to confer standing.
‘‘Mississippi submitted no evidence that any DACA eligible immigrants resided in the state,’’ the court said. ‘‘Nor did Mississippi produce evidence of costs it would incur if some DACA-approved immigrants came to the state.’’
‘‘Mississippi was required to demonstrate that the state will incur costs because of the DACA program,’’ the court said. ‘‘Because Mississippi’s claim of injury is not supported by any facts, we agree with the district court that Mississippi’s injury is purely speculative.’’
In contrast, Blackman said that the ‘‘Texas case was filed in 2014, two years after DACA was implemented. To show standing, Texas (and 2 other states) offered detailed affidavits documenting specific cost to the state for providing driver’s licenses to DAPA beneficiaries.’’
He said that a concurring opinion by Judge Priscilla Richman Owen ‘‘may have been tipping a hat’’ to Texas on how it could do a better job showing standing.
But Blackman said that while the record in the Mis- sissippi case ‘‘had virtually no basis to assess whether DACA was discretionary,’’ the record in the Texas case ‘‘has a trove of information about how DACA has been implemented.’’
‘‘On the merits, the 5th Circuit will have a solid re- cord to decide whether DAPA is in fact discretionary, or an ‘abdication’ of the law, as Judge Hanen found,’’ Blackman concluded.
Both Wydra and Blackman said that the issue is likely to land in the Supreme Court.
But Blackman predicted that if the court did agree to hear the case, arguments wouldn’t be heard until next fall.