DACA, Supreme Court Ruling

[PeliusAnar]

So the ruling was actually a bit interesting. The left is saying they won since the program isn't ended, but the real kicker is that Roberts left the door open to ending the program, but in a way it can't be done immediately.

Supreme Court rules against Trump administration bid to end DACA program

In a 5-4 decision, with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the liberal members to author the opinion, the court said the Department of Homeland Security's move to eliminate the program was done in an "arbitrary and capricious" manner although they did not rule on the merits of the program itself.

"We do not decide whether DACA or its rescission are sound policies. 'The wisdom' of those decisions 'is none of our concern,'" Roberts wrote in his opinion. "We address only whether the agency complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action."

"That dual failure raises doubts about whether the agency appreciated the scope of its discretion or exercised that discretion in a reasonable manner," Roberts wrote, noting that the administration could have scrapped the benefits provided by DACA while keeping the non-enforcement policy, but instead eliminated all of it without even giving a reason for ceasing non-enforcement.

"The appropriate recourse is therefore to remand to DHS so that it may consider the problem anew."

“The dispute before the Court is not whether DHS may rescind DACA. All parties agree that it may," the chief justice wrote. "The dispute is instead primarily about the procedure the agency followed in doing so.”

The Trump administration had argued that the decision to eliminate DACA does not fall under the purview of the APA because DACA itself was merely a decision not to enforce existing law against a certain group of people. The Supreme Court disagreed, noting that "DACA is not simply a non-enforcement policy" because it is an actual program where people apply to receive a benefit.

"In short, the DACA Memorandum does not announce a passive non-enforcement policy; it created a program for conferring affirmative immigration relief," Roberts wrote. "The creation of that program—and its rescission—is an 'action [that] provides a focus for judicial review.'"

I guess to start things off, what new things need to be considered? Trump offered an announcement before moving to cancel it and it has been a number of years. So if Trump says that he is canceling the program due to it being illegal and then gives a comment period of a year, would that be legal? Will this force Trump to consult with the Supreme Court to confirm his process for disbanding DACA is legal beforehand, will the Supreme Court even look at something beforehand?

The next issue is that this gives sweeping power to the Executive Branch to make unilateral changes to the law. Could Trump make another program called, Dispose Aliens Considered Alternatives, DACA, that registers illegal aliens and then moves to get rid of them from the country any way possible. It seems according to Roberts, that Trump could do that or any President for that matter.

Next, this opens up a lower court, like Texas to still issue an injunction against DACA on the merits of the program itself. At least that is the way I read things. The Supreme Court only ruled on the administrative aspect not on the program, so it seems feasible that Texas might pursue its case to have the program blocked once more. The judge initially held things up in order to wait for a ruling from the Supreme Court. This makes it seem that a judge could end the program by addressing its merits.

Finally, I want to say Roberts is trying to not make waves but in doing so he is trampling over our Constitution and the rule of law.

 

[Bigking321]

Finally, I want to say Roberts is trying to not make waves but in doing so he is trampling over our Constitution and the rule of law.

Yep. That's the reputation he seems to be trying to cement for himself.

 

[PeliusAnar]

Confirmation that Texas will continue their case against the illegality of Obama's order since the Supreme Court didn't bother to rule on that.

Attorney General Ken Paxton gave this statement on today’s United States Supreme Court ruling on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program:

“We are disappointed with today’s SCOTUS decision, but it does not resolve the underlying issue that President Obama’s original executive order exceeded his constitutional authority. We look forward to continuing litigating that issue in our case now pending in the Southern District of Texas.”  

 

[StormEagle]

And Roberts proves, once again, that he is the biggest mistake Bush ever made.

Theoretically speaking, could Trump ignore the court and press on anyways? To my knowledge, there has never been a President that has openly defied the orders of the court. What constitutional powers could he potentially use to bypass them?

And, more importantly, could he do so and still be elected again?

 

[f1onagher]

Fucking hell Roberts, the Vikings aren't going to spare you just because you keep giving them Danegeld. Nut up and be part of the solution for a change and maybe we can (politically) kill off the Commie cocksuckers ranting about packing the courts. Its an old tactic and you should know better!

 

[Emperor Tippy]

Ultimately, Trump could still end DACA tomorrow. The President is explicitly outside the remit of the Administrative Procedures Act.

The only reason that this was a case at all is that Trump decided to be cute and try to avoid responsibility. If he had just done an EO saying "In my opinion, this is an illegal program and all branches of the Executive Branch are instructed to enforce existing immigration law and on my authority, DACA is ended effective X date" then it would have stood up.

I haven't read the whole opinion yet, but based on the summaries I'm inclined to disagree with the Court. Still, it's only a case in the first place because Trump continued his trend of lacking balls when it comes to executive action.

 

[PeliusAnar]

And Roberts proves, once again, that he is the biggest mistake Bush ever made.

Theoretically speaking, could Trump ignore the court and press on anyways? To my knowledge, there has never been a President that has openly defied the orders of the court. What constitutional powers could he potentially use to bypass them?

And, more importantly, could he do so and still be elected again?

Well the Supreme Court just gave the President unilateral authority to rewrite the laws that Congress passes. Trump could theoretically pass an executive order making all police officers immune to all prosecution and the same argument used for DACA would apply in that case as well.

Ultimately, Trump could still end DACA tomorrow. The President is explicitly outside the remit of the Administrative Procedures Act.

The only reason that this was a case at all is that Trump decided to be cute and try to avoid responsibility. If he had just done an EO saying "In my opinion, this is an illegal program and all branches of the Executive Branch are instructed to enforce existing immigration law and on my authority, DACA is ended effective X date" then it would have stood up.

I haven't read the whole opinion yet, but based on the summaries I'm inclined to disagree with the Court. Still, it's only a case in the first place because Trump continued his trend of lacking balls when it comes to executive action.

I think that the pushback would be too large. Also now that I think more on Robert's decision, this is actually the best outcome for Trump. The one thing that got people fired up for Trump in 2016 was the courts and how Trump laid out who he was going to nominate. This just fires up people even more. That is the biggest thing I always liked about Trump, despite being President he always portrays himself as the underdog. Trump can still get rid of DACA, but it looks the Supreme Court handed him a setback. If I was on the left I would be pissed as hell, since this doesn't change anything. Robert's wrote the majority opinion so he could frame it exactly like this.

I will admit I bought a bit into all the left propaganda talking about this as a win, but in reality it is no where close to a win. It just hands things back to Trump.

I guess the issue comes down to political heat. Trump will probably not act on DACA until after the election (famous last words of mine most likely) in the hope to win or if he is feeling really ambitious try another push for immigration reform. Still I am betting on huge actions after the election. He could also be counting on Texas to get an injunction against the program based on Obama's illegal executive order.

 

[Prince Ire]

And Roberts proves, once again, that he is the biggest mistake Bush ever made.

Theoretically speaking, could Trump ignore the court and press on anyways? To my knowledge, there has never been a President that has openly defied the orders of the court. What constitutional powers could he potentially use to bypass them?

And, more importantly, could he do so and still be elected again?

Andrew Jackson and Martin van Buren completely ignored the Supreme Court when it came to forcibly expelling the Cherokee, but that was in an area where their actions enjoyed overwhelming popular support and the institutional power of the Supreme Court was less entrenched.