3 ms·

Not a slam dunk as the court has ruled that it is within the executive branch's power to rescind DACA. They ruled that the government's justification at the tim

Not a slam dunk as the court has ruled that it is within the executive branch's power to rescind DACA. They ruled that the government's justification at the time of the rescission did not meet the standards of the Administrative Procedure Act.

addicted 6y ago
True but doesn’t this dismiss the argument that DACA itself is unlawful?
- WarDores 6y ago
  Not necessarily; that issue wasn't before the court.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- o-__-o 6y ago
  No because that’s not what the trial was about.
- rpiguy 6y ago
  No, the court's opinion specifically stated they never weighed whether or not DACA was legal. The decision was purely based on the fact that the administration failed to address the effect on the 650K DACA recipients already living here. The ruling also stated the administration could try again.
- zaroth 6y ago
  In Clarence Thomas’s dissent; > Today the majority makes the mystifying determination that this rescission of DACA was unlawful. In reaching that conclusion, the majority acts as though it is engaging in the routine application of standard principles of administrative law. On the contrary, this is anything but a standard administrative law case. > DHS created DACA during the Obama administration without any statutory authorization and without going through the requisite rulemaking process. As a result, the program was unlawful from its inception. The majority does not even attempt to explain why a court has the authority to scrutinize an agency’s policy reasons for rescinding an unlawful program under the arbitrary and capricious microscope. The decision to countermand an unlawful agency action is clearly reasonable. So long as the agency’s determination of illegality is sound, our review should be at an end.
  - dariusj18 6y ago
    Man, that opinion is a bunch of bull. If one President does something and another wants to undo it, they can't just leave everyone effected by it in a lurch, even if DACA was brought to the courts and ruled unconstitutional, it would still be the responsibility of the executive to deal with the people affected by it.
    - diebeforei485 6y ago
      "Deal with" people affected by it - for how long? If they gave everyone say an extra year to get one more renewal in, and allowed even more time for specific cases (people serving a tour of duty in the military, or people who are in college, or people going through medical treatment), would that be sufficient? The majority opinion suggests it would be sufficient (pages numbered 25-26). After all, a program created by the administrative branch can be ended by the administrative branch.
      - dariusj18 6y ago
        The main difference between Thomas's opinion and the majority's seem to be that Thomas thinks the Obama administration didn't have authority to implement DACA, whereas the majority doesn't seem to want to rule on that, but doesn't believe that the government can just pull the rug out from underneath someone either way. Additionally I'm not sure if "DHS can terminate or renew deferred action at any time at the agency’s discretion" is as open ended as all Thomas seems to imply. Certainly that discretion itself has to be legal. ex. They couldn't just decide to deport people who don't donate to a political candidate. It has to follow some legal process. IMO it is a failure of the Legislative branch to deal with this.
    - andrewla 6y ago
      This is exactly why the executive should not be responsible for doing this, but instead the slower-moving legislature, so that changing the policy requires Congress to act rather than the whim of the current executive. Congress is utterly unwilling to exercise any power, and instead wants to hand off power to regulatory bodies run by the executive.
rpiguy 6y ago
It wasn't even really about justification, the court refused to allow the law to be rescinded because the administration's executive order did not address the potential effect on the 650K DACA recipients already here.
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
It's as much of a slam dunk as possible. The executive branch has to have some power to rescind policies it created.
rayiner 6y ago
The court didn’t “rule” that—all the parties agreed that the executive branch had the power to rescind DACA and the opinion simply notes the agreement.

addicted 6y ago

True but doesn’t this dismiss the argument that DACA itself is unlawful?

WarDores 6y ago
Not necessarily; that issue wasn't before the court.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
o-__-o 6y ago
No because that’s not what the trial was about.
rpiguy 6y ago
No, the court's opinion specifically stated they never weighed whether or not DACA was legal. The decision was purely based on the fact that the administration failed to address the effect on the 650K DACA recipients already living here. The ruling also stated the administration could try again.
zaroth 6y ago
In Clarence Thomas’s dissent; > Today the majority makes the mystifying determination that this rescission of DACA was unlawful. In reaching that conclusion, the majority acts as though it is engaging in the routine application of standard principles of administrative law. On the contrary, this is anything but a standard administrative law case. > DHS created DACA during the Obama administration without any statutory authorization and without going through the requisite rulemaking process. As a result, the program was unlawful from its inception. The majority does not even attempt to explain why a court has the authority to scrutinize an agency’s policy reasons for rescinding an unlawful program under the arbitrary and capricious microscope. The decision to countermand an unlawful agency action is clearly reasonable. So long as the agency’s determination of illegality is sound, our review should be at an end.
- dariusj18 6y ago
  Man, that opinion is a bunch of bull. If one President does something and another wants to undo it, they can't just leave everyone effected by it in a lurch, even if DACA was brought to the courts and ruled unconstitutional, it would still be the responsibility of the executive to deal with the people affected by it.
  - diebeforei485 6y ago
    "Deal with" people affected by it - for how long? If they gave everyone say an extra year to get one more renewal in, and allowed even more time for specific cases (people serving a tour of duty in the military, or people who are in college, or people going through medical treatment), would that be sufficient? The majority opinion suggests it would be sufficient (pages numbered 25-26). After all, a program created by the administrative branch can be ended by the administrative branch.
    - dariusj18 6y ago
      The main difference between Thomas's opinion and the majority's seem to be that Thomas thinks the Obama administration didn't have authority to implement DACA, whereas the majority doesn't seem to want to rule on that, but doesn't believe that the government can just pull the rug out from underneath someone either way. Additionally I'm not sure if "DHS can terminate or renew deferred action at any time at the agency’s discretion" is as open ended as all Thomas seems to imply. Certainly that discretion itself has to be legal. ex. They couldn't just decide to deport people who don't donate to a political candidate. It has to follow some legal process. IMO it is a failure of the Legislative branch to deal with this.
  - andrewla 6y ago
    This is exactly why the executive should not be responsible for doing this, but instead the slower-moving legislature, so that changing the policy requires Congress to act rather than the whim of the current executive. Congress is utterly unwilling to exercise any power, and instead wants to hand off power to regulatory bodies run by the executive.

rpiguy 6y ago

It wasn't even really about justification, the court refused to allow the law to be rescinded because the administration's executive order did not address the potential effect on the 650K DACA recipients already here.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

It's as much of a slam dunk as possible. The executive branch has to have some power to rescind policies it created.

rayiner 6y ago

The court didn’t “rule” that—all the parties agreed that the executive branch had the power to rescind DACA and the opinion simply notes the agreement.