SCOTUS rules against Trump Admin. decision to end DACA (1 Viewer)

[superchuck500]

The opinion is written by Roberts - but there are various parts with various join/concur/dissent. It's not a simple count, though the majority itself is 5-4, with Roberts joining the "liberal" wing.

ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, except as to Part IV. GINSBURG, BREYER, and KAGAN, JJ., joined that opinion in full, and SOTOMAYOR, J., joined as to all but Part IV. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed an opinion concurring in part, concurring in the judgment in part, and dissenting in part. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which ALITO and GORSUCH, JJ., joined. ALITO, J., and KAVANAUGH, J., filed opinions concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.

 

[superchuck500]

Opinion:

 

[superchuck500]

Just for basic context - DACA originates in an Obama executive memorandum, it is not law or legislation. The Administrative Procedure Act provides certain legal remedies for where an executive agency acts without appropriate consideration of certain issues/impacts relating to the agency action in question. Where a court finds that the agency action was taken in an arbitrary and/or capricious manner, the court can render the action void for violating the APA.

Though DACA's origin in from a White House executive memorandum, its programmatic operation is subject to the APA. The gist of the ruling is that the Trump administration's decision to end the program was not undertaken with proper procedure and consideration.

It appears that Thomas writes the key dissent, arguing that the decision stands for the idea that prior administrations can bind future administrations to policies the future administration disagrees with. There may be some appeal to that idea as problematic, the reality is that the US has so much administrative/executive programmatic "law" these days and the APA very clearly provides that these matters are not simply left to unconstrained agency discretion.

 

[samiam5211]

Couldn’t he still end it with an executive order expressly intended to do so?

I always thought he was just trying to avoid having to do that because he didn’t want responsibility for the consequences.

 

[coldseat]

Just for basic context - DACA originates in an Obama executive memorandum, it is not law or legislation. The Administrative Procedure Act provides certain legal remedies for where an executive agency acts without appropriate consideration of certain issues/impacts relating to the agency action in question. Where a court finds that the agency action was taken in an arbitrary and/or capricious manner, the court can render the action void for violating the APA.

Though DACA's origin in from a White House executive memorandum, its programmatic operation is subject to the APA. The gist of the ruling is that the Trump administration's decision to end the program was not undertaken with proper procedure and consideration.

It appears that Thomas writes the key dissent, arguing that the decision stands for the idea that prior administrations can bind future administrations to policies the future administration disagrees with. There may be some appeal to that idea as problematic, the reality is that the US has so much administrative/executive programmatic "law" these days and the APA very clearly provides that these matters are not simply left to unconstrained agency discretion.

Is that the same law/rational that Roberts used in the Census question decision? It seems like that he's big on having a clear and authentic rational for these decisions and policy changes by federal agencies.

 

[superchuck500]

Is that the same law/rational that Roberts used in the Census question decision? It seems like that he's big on having a clear and authentic rational for these decisions and policy changes by federal agencies.

Principally, yes.

 

[superchuck500]

Trump very displeased with decisions this week - one of which was written by his appointee.

 

[coldseat]

Trump very displeased with decisions this week - one of which was written by his appointee.

I don't think he really cares either way. He's just using the decisions to anger his supporters to rally behind him and make sure they turn out and vote. It's what he does with everything.

 

[insidejob]

This is a good one for those who remember the whole Anita Hill scandal.

 

[superchuck500]

smh

 

[TaylorB]

I was fortunate enough to be with two immigration lawyers when this news broke. The ruling is complicated, but they're ecstatic over the outcome. We all needed the boost of positivity, but it clearly felt different for them than for me. It sounds like the administration could have achieved their desired result with DACA if they'd been able to do it competently. Isn't this similar to what happened to one of the travel bans?

 

[JimEverett]

I was fortunate enough to be with two immigration lawyers when this news broke. The ruling is complicated, but they're ecstatic over the outcome. We all needed the boost of positivity, but it clearly felt different for them than for me. It sounds like the administration could have achieved their desired result with DACA if they'd been able to do it competently. Isn't this similar to what happened to one of the travel bans?

Yes, I think it is very similar to the travel ban. Similar to the Census issue as well.

Seems like Trump gets out in front of the planning/strategy for getting policy done and it ends up hurting him.

 

[superchuck500]

Yes, I think it is very similar to the travel ban. Similar to the Census issue as well.

Seems like Trump gets out in front of the planning/strategy for getting policy done and it ends up hurting him.

Yes, it's not surprising that an administration that is as dismissive of institutional knowledge and suspicious of career civil servants as this one is, that they would find themselves regularly unable execute their objectives within the mechanisms required under federal administrative law and procedure.

 

[superchuck500]

Yep

 

[MT15]

Shotgun blast to the face? Good lord.

 

[superchuck500]

Shotgun blast to the face? Good lord.

A sitting president described a Supreme Court decision holding that a program designed to keep immigrant children from being deported was improperly canceled (so they can stay - for now) as a “shotgun blast to the face” of conservative Americans.

What the holy hell - this is some dystopian shirt right here.

 

[MT15]

Yup, it sure is.

 

[saintmdterps]

A sitting president described a Supreme Court decision holding that a program designed to keep immigrant children from being deported was improperly canceled (so they can stay - for now) as a “shotgun blast to the face” of conservative Americans.

What the holy hell - this is some dystopian shirt right here.

A Supreme Court where HE appointed two of the justices. SCOTUS wants no part of the sinking ship that is the Trump "administration" These souls have no desire to be tied to the Trump legacy of evil, mean-spirited narcissism.