As such, I concur that beneficiaries of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program should remain in the United States but that the U.S. Supreme Court was wrong in rebuffing the Trump administration's desire to overturn said program.
The Supreme Court on Thursday delivered a blow to President Trump's immigration agenda, ruling the administration's attempt to dismantle an Obama-era program that protects young undocumented immigrants from deportation was unlawful.
With its 5-4 ruling, the high court provided a lifeline to nearly 700,000 immigrants whose future in the United States hung in the balance while a yearslong legal battle over the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program moved through the courts.
Chief Justice John Roberts, who joined the four liberals justices on the bench, delivered the opinion for the court, writing that the Trump administration's decision to unwind the program was "arbitrary and capricious" under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Roberts wrote the court does "not decide whether DACA or its rescission are sound policies," but said the Department of Homeland Security should revisit the issue.
"We address only whether the agency complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action. 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," he wrote for the majority. "That dual failure raises doubts about whether the agency appreciated the scope of its discretion or exercised that discretion in a reasonable manner."
It can never be emphasized enough that I am the furthest thing from a legal scholar, so I may be punching above my weight class here. That said, there is no debate that DACA was created via executive fiat during the Obama administration. It's always been my understanding that an Executive Order is not binding once the POTUS who constructed it leaves office. So what am I missing here?
In his scathing dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas addressed that very issue.
"Today's decision must be recognized for what it is: an effort to avoid a politically controversial but legally correct decision," Thomas wrote. "The court could have made clear that the solution respondents seek must come from the legislative branch. Instead, the majority has decided to prolong DHS' initial overreach by providing a stopgap measure of its own. In doing so, it has given the green light for future political battles to be fought in this court rather than where they rightfully belong — the political branches."
Thomas wrote the decision in rebuffing the Trump administration's efforts to unwind DACA "creates perverse incentives, particularly for outgoing administrations."
Hmmmm. So if Trump loses reelection in November but enacts, say, a bunch of pro gun Executive Orders in the lame duck portion of his term, it's possible they could be upheld by SCOTUS? Eh. Probably not. But given that the highest court in the land continually punts on hearing any Second Amendment cases, what would Trump have to lose at that point?
-------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment