Posted on 01/23/2018 7:35:40 AM PST by markomalley
Prosecutorial discretion in immigration cases generally: Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. at 2499 (“A principal feature of the removal system is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials. Federal officials, as an initial matter, must decide whether it makes sense to pursue removal at all.”)
8 U.S.C. § 1252(g): “No court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim by or on behalf of any alien arising from the decision or action by the Attorney General to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders against any alien under this chapter.”
Since its NOT a law voted on by anyone, its kind of hard to believe anyone other than the Liberal Four could back it.
“Prosecutorial discretion in immigration cases generally....”
Yes but Kennedy goes on to say that ‘discretion’ may be applied in ascertaining a cost vs benefit to an specific removal.
“No court shall have jurisdiction...”
Again, I’m missing it. The way I’m reading it, it applies to lower courts hearing any case once a removal order has been issued. I’m not seeing how this would lead anybody to assume it applies to a group the size of DACA.
Easy just like they can implement the illegal Obamacare. Their decisions don't have to make sense or even be in line with current law, their decision becomes law. Which itself is outside their defined powers but, oh well..........
A few Outlaw Federal Judges.
What Kennedy says is its up to a Federal agency to determine whether or not to prosecute. And Sec. 1252(g) says that the agency’s determination whether or not to prosecute is not reviewable a Court.
The principle of “prosecutorial discretion” is as old as prosecution. The decision of whether or not to file charges, which charges are filed, and whether certain charges are dismissed, is entirely up to a prosecutor, and Courts have no say to order charges filed. Not in our adversarial system of justice. Courts have always held that the only check on prosecutorial discretion is political, not judicial. (With the exception of charges requiring at least probable cause, and the requirement that the prosecutor cannot file charges in bad faith without evidence. Ask Jerry Nifong about all that.)
Both Arizona v. U. S. and 8 USC 1252(g) reaffirm this very basic principle.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.