Posted on 11/14/2019 10:04:34 PM PST by MaxistheBest
Conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices on Tuesday appeared sympathetic to President Donald Trump’s effort to rescind a program that protects from deportation hundreds of thousands of immigrants who entered the United States illegally as children – dubbed “Dreamers” – part of his tough immigration policies.
Several of the five conservative justices appeared skeptical that courts can even review the Republican president’s 2017 plan to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which had been implemented in 2012 by his Democratic predecessor Barack Obama. Even if the court finds that it can be reviewed, conservative justices indicated they think Trump’s administration gave a reasonable explanation for its decision.
Liberal justices emphasized the large number of individuals, businesses and others that have relied on the program. The court’s 5-4 conservative majority includes two justices – Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh – appointed by Trump.
The justices heard the administration’s appeals of lower court rulings in California, New York and the District of Columbia that blocked Trump’s move as unlawful and left DACA in place.
Trump’s administration has argued that Obama exceeded his constitutional powers when he created DACA by executive action, bypassing Congress. Trump has made his hardline immigration policies – cracking down on legal and illegal immigration and pursuing construction of a wall along the U.S.-Mexican border – a centerpiece of his presidency and 2020 re-election campaign.
Kavanaugh said there is no reason to think that the administration’s consideration of the impact its decision would have on individuals, when weighed against its contention that the DACA program was unlawful from the beginning, was anything other than a “considered decision.”
Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts – who could be the pivotal vote in deciding the case – questioned whether there was much more that needed to be added to the administration’s rationale even if the court were to rule in favor of the challengers and send the issue back for further review.
The challengers who sued to stop Trump’s action included a collection of states such as California and New York, people currently protected by the program and civil rights groups.
Were the court to rule in favor of the challengers it would merely prolong the uncertainty for “Dreamers,” Gorsuch said.
“What good would another five years of litigation … serve?” Gorsuch asked.
DACA currently shields about 660,000 immigrants – mostly Hispanic young adults – from deportation and provides them work permits, though not a path to citizenship.
Much of the administration’s reasoning in trying to end DACA was based on then-Attorney General Jeff Session’s conclusion in 2017 that the program was unlawful.
Gorsuch pressed an attorney representing supporters of DACA about the limits on courts to second guess decisions by federal agencies that are within their discretion to make. Gorsuch also seemed skeptical that the administration had not adequately addressed its reasons for rescinding the program, as DACA advocates have argued.
Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor demanded that U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco, who argued the case for the administration, identify whether the administration considered all the harm that ending the program would do, or if it was just a “choice to destroy lives.”
Francisco was repeatedly questioned as to why the administration has justified ending the program because of its purported unlawfulness instead of giving other reasons for why it wants to.
Toward the end of the argument Francisco pushed back, saying the administration was not trying to shirk responsibility for ending a popular program.
“We own this,” Francisco said, referring to Trump’s decision to kill DACA.
The lower courts ruled that Trump’s move to rescind DACA was likely “arbitrary and capricious” and violated a U.S. law called the Administrative Procedure Act.
The justices must determine whether administration officials failed to provide adequate reasons for the decision to end DACA. The initial memo rescinding DACA, the plaintiffs said, gave a “one-sentence explanation” and did not spell out why the administration believes the program is unlawful. The justices will also have to decide whether the administration’s action against DACA is even something courts can review.
Reuters contributed to this report.
Winning
Idiot.
The liberal judges think that it is unlawful for Trump to use an Executive Order to rescind an unlawful Executive Order by Obama. Yep, that is the reasoning of the self-proclaimed “wise Latina.” Liberals simply do not care about the rule of law. They care only about how they can manipulate their “living Constitution” to meet their policy goals. Disgusting!
How can they not? One president cannot write an executive order, or memo, or whatever it was, that another president cannot rewrite or undo. That’s not the way laws are made in our system of government, and if the bleeding hearts have a problem with the hardship it will cause, they should take that up with the Democrats.
DACA was a memorandum written by President Janet Napolitano.
Trump does not need to “rescind” DACA.
The “D” in DACA stands for “Deferred Prosecution.”
Three years ago, Trump could have written an Executive Order to the Secretary of Homeland Security and ordered him to remove all persons illegally present in the USA.
Trump’s authority derives from the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 - and the 70 years of settled law that have followed it.
By the way - for those who have not heard, Trump just appointed Chad Wolf as Acting Secretary of Homeland Security.
Among Chad Wolf’s immigration achievements - he was a registered lobbyist for H-1B visas from 2016-2017.
Winning On Immigration!
The supreme court can choose to rule that an executive order can authorize an illegal act. Granting legal rights to people here against the law, working against the law, and staying against the law was the purpose of DACA. The votes of SCOTUS that give DACA the same weight as the immigration law that was part of a deal democrats chose to decline instead wanting a media and court press to “legalize” shows the rule of law is not important at the SCOTUS level. I have always wondered how someone can swear by a constitution, if it is obvious they do not care about it.
DK
It was written at the direction of Barack Obama.
An E.O. written by the Secretary of any Cabinet department carries the exact same legal weight as an E.O. written by the President.
A Presidential E.O. has more prestige. I will guess that Obama was uncertain about the public response to DACA, so he made Janet sign the E.O.
Does a Supreme Court Justice really talk like that?
Yeah, Trump became president to destroy lives.
What a ridiculous statement to make!
It is an executive memorandum, NOT an executive order.
Re: “It is an executive memorandum, NOT an executive order.”
I defer to your knowledge.
Bottom Line....
A Secretary’s Executive Memorandum has the exact same legal weight as a President’s Executive Order.
Both of them create or interpret the enforcement policy for statutes passed by Congress.
You obviously have zero interest in learning the difference, NeverTrump.
NeverTrump NeverTrump NeverTrump NeverTrump NeverTrump NeverTrump NeverTrump NeverTrump NeverTrump NeverTrump NeverTrump NeverTrump NeverTrump NeverTrump NeverTrump NeverTrump NeverTrump NeverTrump NeverTrump NeverTrump NeverTrump NeverTrump NeverTrump NeverTrump
You slipped the FR NeverTrump net in 2016, but now that I go back and look at it, you've been stealth NeverTrump the whole time.
Pity that you decided to push the phony "executive order" Narrative at this time...
Re: “You obviously have zero interest in learning the difference [between Executive Memo and Executive Order].”
They both carry the weight of law, and they are both reviewable by the Supreme Court.
For this thread, that’s all anyone needs to know.
If you would like to write a compare-contrast essay on the subject, I look forward to reading it.
Re: Never Trump
I voted for Trump in 2016, and I will vote to reelect Trump in 2020, but only because Trump is the most Conservative candidate who has a chance to win the election.
Win or lose, Trump will be the last Republican President in American history.
Trump is a scam artist on the immigration issue.
If Conservatives don’t hold Trump’s feet to the political fire on immigration, who will?
“arbitrary and capricious”
I expect Roberts to use this, just as he reasoned that Trump had the authority to include a citizenship question on the 2020 census, but the administration needed to better explain to Roberts “why” and how they made decisions.
Same will likely be ruled here, that Trump has the authority to end DACA, but hasn’t given a good enough reasons. Apparently, Roberts has the authority to second guess all of Trump’s decisions.
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.