Supreme Court rules against Trump administration bid to end DACA program

[Peter1469]

Quite the opposite. Roberts didn't say that the Trump administration cannot repeal DACA. He simply said that they need to comply with the APA and failed to do so.

They didn't need to get that far because the Obama EO was an abuse of executive authority.

What would notice and comment look like? DHS is planning on rescinding DACA because it is based off an EO and not based on statutory authority. Any interested party may submit public comments by [date].

That is a question of law and not appropriate for public comment in the rule-making process.

[roadmaster]

I was actually expecting this one.

[Peter1469]

It does, in effect make it Constitutional for A Democrat President to use an EO to make a law while, at the same time making in illegal for a Republican President to undo it with an EO.

The law is lawless.

DACA bills were in Congress for a while and Congress couldn't decide on a final version. No DACA legislation has ever been passed. The EO is simply unconstitutional on its face.

[Newpublius]

The primary legal issue for the majority was that proper rule-making procedures were not followed to make changes to the DACA program.

Nothing is easier than for the Supreme Court to determine the outcome it wants and then to put the rationale in place to boot strap that decision. Whether or not there is merit to the idea that Trump didn't follow federal administrative law, you still can't get around one very basic point. The DACA program was unconstitutional TO BEGIN WITH. Obama did not instittute his program legally. Forget following congressional statutes, Obama didn't even follow the Constitution. DACA is a change of law. Obama usurped the authority of Congress to create that program and he has no authority from Congress or the Constitution to do that. So, frankly I am not in the mood to listen to the Supreme Court in how the Trump Administration didn't follow administrative statutes.

In this case whether Trump did follow statute or not should be completely irrelevant.

The basic question at the heart of this case is whether or not the DACA program itself was even legal. AND IT WASN'T.

It does, in effect make it Constitutional for A Democrat President to use an EO to make a law while, at the same time making in illegal for a Republican President to undo it with an EO.

The law is lawless.

Well, you know how it is, all legislative power is vested in the Executive Branch. Unless, of course, its Trump.... ;-)

Constitutional delegitimization.

They didn't need to get that far because the Obama EO was an abuse of executive authority.

The elephant in the room

[Peter1469]

Exactly.

Nothing is easier than for the Supreme Court to determine the outcome it wants and then to put the rationale in place to boot strap that decision. Whether or not there is merit to the idea that Trump didn't follow federal administrative law, you still can't get around one very basic point. The DACA program was unconstitutional TO BEGIN WITH. Obama did not instittute his program legally. Forget following congressional statutes, Obama didn't even follow the Constitution. DACA is a change of law. Obama usurped the authority of Congress to create that program and he has no authority from Congress or the Constitution to do that. So, frankly I am not in the mood to listen to the Supreme Court in how the Trump Administration didn't follow administrative statutes.

In this case whether Trump did follow statute or not should be completely irrelevant.

The basic question at the heart of this case is whether or not the DACA program itself was even legal. AND IT WASN'T.



Well, you know how it is, all legislative power is vested in the Executive Branch. Unless, of course, its Trump.... ;-)

Constitutional delegitimization.


The elephant in the room

[MMC]

John Roberts's DACA decision is a constitutional disaster

His reasoning focuses almost entirely on the Trump administration’s actions in regards to DACA, and ignores the substance, and thus the constitutionality, of the DACA program altogether.

[carolina73]

Maybe I am confused but didn't DACA expire on its own?
Shouldn't the court have refused the case and claim it required legislation?
Can an expired EO overrule a EO by the current President?

[MMC]

In 2017, President Trump cancelled his predecessor's order to allow illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. before age 16 to apply for protection from deportation. On Thursday, SCOTUS ruled that Trump's move was was "arbitrary and capricious" and that the DACA program would be upheld. Chief Justice Roberts, always a swing vote, swung in the direction of the court's four liberal justices. In their ruling, the justices note that they did not rule on the merits of the case, but on the procedure the Trump administration used to try and rescind DACA.


"Today’s decision must be recognized for what it is: an effort to avoid a politically controversial but legally correct decision," he later adds.


At issue here is whether emotion has replaced the law. Liberal lawmakers argue it's inhumane to send DREAMers away, especially since for some of them the U.S. is the only home they've ever known and they were brought here through no fault of their own. But for conservatives, it's a matter of maintaining law and order. And Justice Thomas forcefully communicated the latter sentiment......snip~


https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortne...ssent-n2570894


So now Trump needs to take it on only one issue. Was the Peeps EO Constitutionally legal and only argue that point so Roberts can't play headgames.

[Peter1469]

John Roberts's DACA decision is a constitutional disaster

His reasoning focuses almost entirely on the Trump administration’s actions in regards to DACA, and ignores the substance, and thus the constitutionality, of the DACA program altogether.

You can tell with the majority opinion they are not that interested in how DACA was enacted, only in how the Administration was trying to close it down.

Hello. We are skipping a fundamental step here.

[Peter1469]

Maybe I am confused but didn't DACA expire on its own?
Shouldn't the court have refused the case and claim it required legislation?
Can an expired EO overrule a EO by the current President?

The Obama DACA EO triggered the administrative rule making process by DHS to create the regulations that would govern the program. That was accomplished.

I don't know about whether the program was limited in time. Perhaps it was.

The majority today said that the current Admin- DHS did not follow the rule making process to end DACA.

But so what if the DACA EO was not based on a law that Congress passed. It was void- not Constitutional.