Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Monrose72

This should be a no brainer , legally speaking.

A president issues an executive order, and then the next president reverses that executive order.

How can the courts intervene, when it comes to executive orders??? How does it violates any laws, if a president rescinds a previous executive order?


4 posted on 06/25/2019 1:48:46 PM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Dilbert San Diego
Four courts have stated that President Trump has the authority to end DACA as a policy decision:

Regents of the University of California v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security : "To be clear: we do not hold that DACA could not be rescinded as an exercise of Executive Branch discretion. We hold only that here, where the Executive did not make a discretionary choice to end DACA—but rather acted based on an erroneous view of what the law required—the rescission was arbitrary and capricious under settled law. The government is, as always, free to reexamine its policy choices"

Napolitano v DHS: "All agree that a new administration is entitled to replace old policies with new policies [...] the new administration didn’t terminate DACA on policy grounds. It terminated DACA over a point of law, a pithy conclusion that the agency had exceeded its statutory and constitutional authority."

Batalla Vidal v. Nielsen: "Defendants indisputably can end the DACA program. [...] The question before the court is thus not whether Defendants could end the DACA program, but whether they offered legally adequate reasons for doing so. Based on its review of the record before it, the court concludes that Defendants have not done so. First, the decision to end the DACA program appears to rest exclusively on a legal conclusion that the program was unconstitutional and violated the APA and INA."

NAACP v. Trump: "while immigration policies are generally “so exclusively entrusted to the political branches of government as to be largely immune from judicial inquiry or interference,” there are good reasons to scrutinize a policy more carefully when it is based solely on an agency’s reading of domestic statutory law."

5 posted on 06/25/2019 1:55:23 PM PDT by NobleFree ("law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: Dilbert San Diego

IIRC, it wasn’t an executive order. It was a memo to Jeh Johnson, DHS Secretary.


6 posted on 06/25/2019 1:56:42 PM PDT by Gahanna Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: Dilbert San Diego

This should be a no brainer , legally speaking.

Just hope the Supremes actually follow the law.


7 posted on 06/25/2019 1:57:08 PM PDT by Texas resident (Democrats=Enemy of People of The United States of America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: Dilbert San Diego

Don’t know how many times it has to be said on here. It wasn’t an Executive Order!!! It was a memo to DHS about enforcement, or more accurately, non enforcement. A memo!


10 posted on 06/25/2019 2:03:20 PM PDT by sheana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


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