Posted on 06/18/2020 1:54:34 PM PDT by street_lawyer
I assume that if there are comments some of them will be accusing me of trolling or being a liberal, but I am an attorney and I am just considering the facts. The decision does not mean that the Roberts is now a liberal, although standing up for Roberts in this instance in this form is likely to earn me hateful comment
The dispute before the Court is not whether DHS may rescind DACA. All parties agree that it may. The dispute is instead primarily about the procedure the agency followed in doing so. The DACA Obama policy had two elements 1. Deferred Deportation 2. It allowed illegal aliens to be eligible for benefits.
Kavanaugh: when an agency rescinds a prior policy, its reasoned analysis must consider the “alternative[s]” that are “within the ambit of the existing [policy].” Here forbearance was not simply “within the ambit of the existing [policy],” it was the centerpiece of the policy: DACA, after all, stands for “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 111a (emphasis added). But the rescission memorandum contains no discussion of forbearance or the option of retaining forbearance without benefits.
In my opinion the reason the Court did not approve of what Trump’s DHS did in reversing what Obama’s DHS did is that 200,000 people “relied” on the deferment, changed their position to their detriment, such as enrolling in degree programs, starting businesses, purchased homes, married and had children. Hiring and replacing would cost employers $6.3 billion, and a $215 billion economic activity and an associated $60 billion in federal tax revenue over the next ten years. States and local governments would lose $1.25 billion in tax revenue each year.
Kavanaugh wrote: When an agency changes course, as DHS did here, it must “be cognizant that longstanding policies may have ‘engendered serious reliance interests that must be taken into account.’”
Trump’s DHS should have kept the deferment in place and only challenged the entitlement to benefits.
Here Kavanaugh gives Trump advice on how to get his way: Had Duke considered reliance interests, she might, for example, have considered a broader renewal period based on the need for DACA recipients to reorder their affairs…Alternatively, Duke might have considered more accommodating termination dates for recipients caught in the middle of a time-bounded commitment, to allow them to, say, graduate from their course of study, complete their military service, or finish a medical treatment regimen. Or she might have instructed immigration officials to give salient weight to any reliance interests engendered by DACA when exercising individualized enforcement discretion… Here the agency failed to consider the conspicuous issues of whether to retain forbearance and what if anything to do about the hardship to DACA recipients. That dual failure raises doubts about whether the agency appreciated the scope of its discretion or exercised that discretion in a reasonable manner. The appropriate recourse is therefore to remand to DHS so that it may consider the problem anew.
Thanks.
Ok: Donald Trump should simply order that all federal spending on K-12 education be converted immediately into school vouchers. When families apply for and receive the voucher, their reliance means the policy is irreversible.
Is there a legal basis for saying that President 45 can’t make an EO undoing an EO of President 44 or any prior President without writing that alternatives were researched?
So basically.
Ignore federal law.
Make up your own law.
Write an EO (stroke of the pen, law of the land, kinda cool)
Fight any repeal of it until the illegals are ingrained...
Sorry - too late!!!!
Any clue how much these illegals cost the American taxpayer in free education? Free medical? Taking slots in college from American citizens? Taking jobs that would have went to American citizens? The crimes they have committed while here? Etc.
“In my opinion the reason the Court did not approve of what Trump’s DHS did in reversing what Obama’s DHS did is that 200,000 people “relied” on the deferment, changed their position to their detriment, such as enrolling in degree programs, starting businesses, purchased homes, married and had children. Hiring and replacing would cost employers $6.3 billion, and a $215 billion economic activity and an associated $60 billion in federal tax revenue over the next ten years. States and local governments would lose $1.25 billion in tax revenue each year.”
“Kavanaugh wrote: When an agency changes course, as DHS did here, it must “be cognizant that longstanding policies may have ‘engendered serious reliance interests that must be taken into account.’””
Reliance? Government enacts laws all the time that change course. So once Congress passes a law or there is an EO that results in people being reliant on a benefit, handout, etc we can never change it because people are reliant on it?
Shirley you are not saying this is an issue in this case.
To be conservative means to do the right thing no matter what the enemies of right try to do to you personally.
Roberts’ record reflects his ideology.
Normally it would not be a problem to singe an executive order without such great scrutiny, but in the DOCA rescission case the reliance on what Obama did by DOCA recipients required more than the usual explanations.
Yes, the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946.
Somebody is pulling a powerful string on Roberts. Compromised.
when a president steals a march through an entirely illegal executive action, it is set in stone because people will come to rely on the change in policy.
What DHS did by deferring prosecution was not illegal. But granting benefits to illegals, that in my opinion was.
So why wouldn't this legal "principle" wipe out all bans on existing firearms already possessed by citizens?
People relied on the law existing at the time of purchase, investing time and money
Precedent is a scam. They can find some pretext to do whatever they wish.
Roberts only applies this standard when defending left wing positions. Did he ever apply it to an Obama executive order?
The blah blah reasoning is just window dressing. When you start adding up the holdings, Roberts has gone over to the dark side almost completely in cases that would piss off the left mightily. He will find a way to rationalize bad results to reach those results and he has four willing allies on the court.
Robert’s rule of law now is,
IF (1) the Appellant is Donald Trump; and (2) Ruling for respondent would really piss off the left;
THEN find a way, any way, to rule for respondent and pretend you are applying a consistent legal doctrine.
Make up your own law.
Write an EO (stroke of the pen, law of the land, kinda cool)
Fight any repeal of it until the illegals are ingrained...
Sorry - too late!!!!
Any clue how much these illegals cost the American taxpayer in free education? Free medical? Taking slots in college from American citizens? Taking jobs that would have went to American citizens? The crimes they have committed while here? Etc.
Why didn't the Republicans sue Obama’s DHS decision?
I do not understand Robert’s decision to prohibit an employer from firing an employee other than for sex discrimination. It was simply a dress code case and a business decision.
And I will add to my previous post a prediction.
There is no amount of reasoning or reasons the Trump administration could provide that would satisfy Roberts. So if this comes before Roberts again one of two things will happen:
(1) An Obamajudge will have ruled against Trump and get confirmed by an appellate court. The Supremes will just let it stand. Or,
(2) The Supremes grant certiorari and Roberts again finds the reasoning inadequate or, if he feels too silly doing that, he will fall back on a procedural issue like standing or mootness to affirm.
Roberts is playing for time. He hopes Trump will be defeated and then, of course, there will be no case for him to rationalize a bad decision. Goal accomplished.
Someday when Trump is out of office and a dem wants to undo everything he did (or maybe it will be a GOPe nevertrumper, same thing) will the SCOTUS block them from doing it? Something tells me no, this ruling only applies for a max of 1-5 years.
“Is there a legal basis for saying that President 45 can’t make an EO undoing an EO of President 44 or any prior President without writing that alternatives were researched?”
There is now. So long as the previous president is named Obama and the current one is named Trump.
The Supreme Court has ruled!
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.