IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXASBROWNSVILLE DIVISIONOrly TAITZ, ))Plaintiff, )) Civil Action No. 1:14-cv-00119)v. ))Jeh JOHNSON,

et al 

., ))Defendants. ) ___________________________________ )

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

-i-

Case 1:14-cv-00119 Document 20 Filed in TXSD on 08/08/14 Page 1 of 33

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................. 1BACKGROUND................................................................................................................................... 3A. Plaintiff’s Allegations and Claims................................................................................ 3B. Legal Background........................................................................................................ 51. Executive Authority to Administer Immigration and Immigration Proceedings...................................................................................................... 52. The Executive Branch’s Enforcement Discretion............................................ 83. Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”). ...................................... 94. Laws Relating to Health and Immigration..................................................... 11LEGAL STANDARD......................................................................................................................... 12ARGUMENT...................................................................................................................................... 13I. Plaintiff Cannot Meet the Elements Required to Warrant a Preliminary Injunction.. 13A. Plaintiff Has Not Established a Likelihood of Success on the Merits........... 131. Plaintiff lacks standing to bring her claims....................................... 13a. Article III Standing............................................................... 13 b. Plaintiff lacks prudential standing to challenge the Secretary’sEnforcement of the INA. ...................................................... 172. The case is otherwise beyond the Court’s jurisdiction...................... 173. Even if this Court had jurisdiction, Plaintiff cannot prevail on themerits of her claims........................................................................... 20B. Plaintiff cannot show a likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence of  preliminary relief........................................................................................................ 21C. The balance of equities does not tip in Plaintiff’s favor.. .............................. 22D. The relief requested is not in the public interest............................................ 22II. This Court should either strike or deny Plaintiff’s subsequent motions.

-ii-

Case 1:14-cv-00119 Document 20 Filed in TXSD on 08/08/14 Page 2 of 33

 

CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................... 25

TABLE OF AUTHORITIESCASES

Arizona v. United States,132 S. Ct. 2492 (2012).......................................................................................... 2, passimAransas Project v. Shaw,--- F.3d. -- 2014 WL 2932514 (5th Cir. June 30, 2014)................................................... 14Bennett v. Spear,520 U.S. 154 (1997).......................................................................................................... 17Califano v. Yamasaki,442 U.S. 682 (1979).......................................................................................................... 24Chamber of Greater Baton Rouge v. EPA,323 F. Supp. 2d 769 (M.D. La. 2004)............................................................................... 19Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA,133 S.Ct. 1138 (2013)....................................................................................................... 14Clinton County Com'rs v. EPA,116 F.3d 1018 (3d Cir. 1997)............................................................................................ 19DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno,547 U.S. 332 (2006).......................................................................................................... 13Erickson v. Pardus,551 U.S. 89 (U.S. 2007)...................................................................................................... 3Federation for Am. Immigration Reform v. Reno,93 F.3d 897 (D.C. Cir. 1996)

 cert. denied 

, 521 U.S. 1119 (1997). .................................. 17Flores v. Reno,CV-85-4544-RJK (C.D. Cal.)....................................................................................... 7, 19Heckler v. Chaney,470 U.S. 821 (1985).......................................................................................................... 17Karsha Bodas Co., L.L.C. v. Perusahaan Pertambangan Minyak Dan Gas Bumi Negara,335 F.3d 357 (5thCir. 2003)............................................................................................. 13-iii-

Case 1:14-cv-00119 Document 20 Filed in TXSD on 08/08/14 Page 3 of 33