Conservative and libertarian lawyers have been paying close attention to the lawsuit by Texas and numerous other states seeking injunctive relief against President Obama’s new immigration nonenforcement policy, now known as “DAPA.” About a month ago, the Cato Institute’s Ilya Shapiro discussed Cato’s amicus brief in the lawsuit here. Earlier this week, superlawyers David B. Rivkin, Jr. & Lee A. Casey took to the pages of the Wall Street Journal (paywall) to commend Nevada AG Adam Laxalt for joining the lawsuit on behalf of the state.
On the academic side, prolific law professor Josh Blackman has been keeping up his own blistering pace of blogging. Here’s his recent series taking apart the government’s sur-reply brief:
- Government’s Sur-Reply in Texas v. United States
- Government’s Sur-Reply Part 1: The Applicability of Youngstown (Jackson, J.) to DAPA
- Government’s Sur-Reply Part 2: The Scope of Injunction
- Government’s Sur-Reply Part 3: Narrowly Reading Massachusetts v. EPA
- Government Sur-Reply Part 4: Helped, Rather than Harmed, for Standing
- Government Sur-Reply Part 5: The Impact of States That Decline To Honor ICE Immigration Detainers
- Government Sur-Reply Part 6: How Big was President Bush’s Family Fairness Program of 1990?
- Government Sur-Reply Part 7: Government Responds to “Temporary Bridge” Argument