Posted on 11/08/2018 7:19:06 PM PST by bitt
A U.S. appeals court has ruled that President Trump’s decision to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program is likely unlawful.
The decision from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals blocks Trump from terminating DACA protections for undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. as children, upholding a lower court’s decision.
The ruling comes in response to a challenge from several individual DACA recipients; the states of California, Maine, Maryland and Minnesota; and the University of California regents.
The court said it has concluded that the acting secretary of Homeland Security was wrong to conclude that the policy was illegal and therefore not subject to the court’s review.
“The government may not simultaneously both assert that its actions are legally compelled, based on its interpretation of the law, and avoid review of that assertion by the judicial branch, whose ‘province and duty’ it is to say what the law is,” Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw said.
Trump moved to rescind DACA within his first months in office. The decision has faced a number of legal challenges and will now likely head to the Supreme Court.
Earlier this week, Trump asked the Supreme Court to preemptively rule on the Obama-era program before appeals courts could rule.
The courts of appeal for the 2nd and District of Columbia circuits also have lower-court rulings before them.
Gotta check my pocket Constitution, but I'm pretty sure the House has jurisdiction over creating new judicial districts.
But yes, there's no question that the Ninth needs to be broken up.
Like most other 9th circuit decisions this will be overturned, especially now with Ginsburg out.
I don’t know how many of you have elderly parents but they don’t recover from bone breaks well. Rib fractures usually cause pnemonia as well. It did with Rand Paul and he ain’t elderly. I lost both my MiL and my father to pnemonia.
I would as president use that statement and actually continue to do what I wanted. If the ruling actually states that an action is “likely unlawful” then the court has not fully stated that the action is in fact “unlawful”. A court needs to say whether an action “IS” or “IS NOT” lawful. If it uses weasel words such as “likely”, then any pol can drive an executive order mack truck and do any thing he wants.
Now this a MSM report watering down the ruling for sound bite addicted folks, but if the actual court ruling said “likely” then they have not ruled at all.
Apologies... I was thinking about judicial appointments only.
It’s the 9th.
The communists on the 9th are overturned by the Supremes more often than not
“Likely unlawful”???????Still lots of work for McConnell to help Trump do with the courts.....
I don’t think Ginsburg is out. Do you have a citation?
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.