Justice Department Official Reveals Coordinated Move to Overturn Texas Dream Act
In a recent private gathering of Republican leaders, a top Justice Department official disclosed that the Trump administration effectively dismantled Texas’ in-state tuition law for undocumented immigrants in mere hours. Deputy Associate Attorney General Abhishek Kambli claimed the swift action was made possible through collaboration with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. This revelation, captured in audio obtained by NBC News, has raised eyebrows regarding the legality of the actions taken.
On June 4, the Justice Department filed a lawsuit against the Texas Dream Act, simultaneously executing a motion urging a judge to deem the law unconstitutional. Remarkably, this request was granted within hours. Critics, including organizations such as Democracy Forward and the ACLU of Texas, argue that the quick legal maneuvering amounts to collusion and undermines the integrity of the judicial process. They contend that true litigation necessitates opposition, not coordinated agreements.
The Justice Department defended its actions, describing the advance notice to state attorneys general as a common practice aimed at fostering resolution prior to litigation. However, this has not quelled backlash. Skye Perryman, president of Democracy Forward, lamented Paxton’s failure to defend a bipartisan law that has been in place for over two decades.
Legal experts express concern over the implications of such collaboration, highlighting that the system thrives on adversarial engagement, which appears compromised in this scenario. Furthermore, historical patterns indicate an increasing acceptance among attorneys general to deem laws unconstitutional when politically expedient.
This incident is part of a broader trend, as the Justice Department has recently targeted other states regarding similar in-state tuition policies for undocumented students, citing the Texas case as a precedent. As the legal narrative unfolds, the ramifications for state laws and executive accountability remain uncertain.
Note: The image is for illustrative purposes only and is not the original image of the presented article.
