4 ms·

but what's weird is that the Obama administration didn't 'dot their Is and cross their Ts' either. The rescission of DACA has been held to this "arbitrary and c

by rrss 6y ago

but what's weird is that the Obama administration didn't 'dot their Is and cross their Ts' either. The rescission of DACA has been held to this "arbitrary and capricious" standard, but the implementation never was. The Supreme Court declined to review the lawsuit that challenged DACA as a violation of the APA (probably because the plaintiff didn't have standing). It seems like the States that challenged DAPA will now challenge DACA on the same grounds, so this decision is just the Supreme Court intentionally stalling - the majority opinion is that the rescission is not sufficiently justified, and it seems like whether the implementation was unlawful is pretty important to decide whether the justification was sufficient.

ceejayoz 6y ago
> what's weird is that the Obama administration didn't 'dot their Is and cross their Ts' either This decision explicitly says otherwise; that they created a specific program with specific requirements that follow the APA's rules. > Based on this directive, USCIS solicited applications from eligible aliens, instituted a standardized review process,and sent formal notices indicating whether the alien would receive the two-year forbearance. These proceedings are effectively “adjudicat[ions].” > In short, the DACA Memorandum does not announce a passive non-enforcement policy; it created a program for conferring affirmative immigration relief.The creation of that program—and its rescission—is an “action [that] provides a focus for judicial review.” Id., at 832. The benefits attendant to deferred action provide further confirmation that DACA is more than simply a non-enforcement policy. As described above, by virtue of receiving deferred action, the 700,000 DACA recipients may request work authorization and are eligible for Social Secu-rity and Medicare. See supra, at 3. Unlike an agency’s refusal to take requested enforcement action, access to these types of benefits is an interest “courts often are called upon to protect.” Chaney, 470 U. S., at 832. See also Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U. S. 20 (2003) (reviewing eligibility determination for Social Security benefits).
- enraged_camel 6y ago
  Yeah, that's one thing most people don't understand about Obama: he may have issued a lot of executive orders, but his administration spent a considerable amount of time on making sure the provisions and programs created by those orders were extensive and thorough. SCOTUS is basically saying, "nope, you can't just declare your predecessor's work illegal and null and void and call it a day, you need to actually provide good reasons for why each part is illegal and should be undone."
  - masonic 6y ago
    The Obama had the worst record of any administration at having actions overturned by the Supreme Court... and having the most overturned unanimously. https://freebeacon.com/politics/study-obama-worst-record-supreme-court-modern-history/ https://freebeacon.com/politics/study-obama-worst-record-sup...
- rrss 6y ago
  I don't think the court has ruled that the implementation of DACA was not "arbitrary and capricious" and had sufficient justification under the APA. (could easily be wrong here though). The sections you quoted are from the section in which the Court is deciding whether the APA applies to the rescission of DACA. This is the introduction to that section: > But before determining whether the rescission was arbi-trary and capricious, we must first address the Govern-ment’s contentions that DHS’s decision is unreviewable under the APA and outside this Court’s jurisdiction and this is the conclusion: > Because the DACA program is more than a non-enforce-ment policy, its rescission is subject to review under the APA The argument there is not that the implementation is legit, it's that the APA applies to DACA as implemented. After deciding that APA applies to DACA, they went on to find that the rescission was in violation. I don't believe that they had any finding on whether the implementation was in violation, because that wasn't the question at hand I guess.

by rrss 6y ago

ceejayoz 6y ago

> what's weird is that the Obama administration didn't 'dot their Is and cross their Ts' either This decision explicitly says otherwise; that they created a specific program with specific requirements that follow the APA's rules. > Based on this directive, USCIS solicited applications from eligible aliens, instituted a standardized review process,and sent formal notices indicating whether the alien would receive the two-year forbearance. These proceedings are effectively “adjudicat[ions].” > In short, the DACA Memorandum does not announce a passive non-enforcement policy; it created a program for conferring affirmative immigration relief.The creation of that program—and its rescission—is an “action [that] provides a focus for judicial review.” Id., at 832. The benefits attendant to deferred action provide further confirmation that DACA is more than simply a non-enforcement policy. As described above, by virtue of receiving deferred action, the 700,000 DACA recipients may request work authorization and are eligible for Social Secu-rity and Medicare. See supra, at 3. Unlike an agency’s refusal to take requested enforcement action, access to these types of benefits is an interest “courts often are called upon to protect.” Chaney, 470 U. S., at 832. See also Barnhart v. Thomas, 540 U. S. 20 (2003) (reviewing eligibility determination for Social Security benefits).

enraged_camel 6y ago
Yeah, that's one thing most people don't understand about Obama: he may have issued a lot of executive orders, but his administration spent a considerable amount of time on making sure the provisions and programs created by those orders were extensive and thorough. SCOTUS is basically saying, "nope, you can't just declare your predecessor's work illegal and null and void and call it a day, you need to actually provide good reasons for why each part is illegal and should be undone."
- masonic 6y ago
  The Obama had the worst record of any administration at having actions overturned by the Supreme Court... and having the most overturned unanimously. https://freebeacon.com/politics/study-obama-worst-record-supreme-court-modern-history/ https://freebeacon.com/politics/study-obama-worst-record-sup...
rrss 6y ago
I don't think the court has ruled that the implementation of DACA was not "arbitrary and capricious" and had sufficient justification under the APA. (could easily be wrong here though). The sections you quoted are from the section in which the Court is deciding whether the APA applies to the rescission of DACA. This is the introduction to that section: > But before determining whether the rescission was arbi-trary and capricious, we must first address the Govern-ment’s contentions that DHS’s decision is unreviewable under the APA and outside this Court’s jurisdiction and this is the conclusion: > Because the DACA program is more than a non-enforce-ment policy, its rescission is subject to review under the APA The argument there is not that the implementation is legit, it's that the APA applies to DACA as implemented. After deciding that APA applies to DACA, they went on to find that the rescission was in violation. I don't believe that they had any finding on whether the implementation was in violation, because that wasn't the question at hand I guess.