Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: nathanbedford

nb, there is an excellent article here which reviews the ruling:

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/398820/print


14 posted on 02/18/2015 4:40:49 AM PST by exit82 ("The Taliban is on the inside of the building" E. Nordstrom 10-10-12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]


To: exit82
Thank you for that citation. It appears that there are varying opinions as to the effect of the opinion. The National Review article says this:

"DAPA was decreed on November 20, 2014, in a series of memorandums, without any opportunity for the public to comment beforehand. Judge Hanen found fatal the government’s failure to comply with the notice-and-comment requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). But the court went further, finding that DAPA was not an exercise or prosecutorial discretion. Rather, DAPA amounted to a decision to “‘consciously and expressly adopt[] a general policy’ that is so extreme as to amount to an abdication of its statutory responsibilities.” The president was willfully disregarding the laws of Congress that he did not agree with. Specifically, DAPA “does not simply constitute inadequate enforcement; it is an announced program of non-enforcement of the law that contradicts Congress’ statutory goals.” This policy, Hanen concluded, is unlawful and must be halted."

It appears that Josh Blackman of National Review finds that the court held that nonenforcement is a violation of law per se and not merely for procedural reasons. That is good news, if so.


16 posted on 02/18/2015 4:51:11 AM PST by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson