3 ms·

> The creation of DACA provided such a justification, the repeal didn't. I quoted this below from Justice Clarence Thomas, but it also directly responds to you

by zaroth 6y ago

> The creation of DACA provided such a justification, the repeal didn't. I quoted this below from Justice Clarence Thomas, but it also directly responds to your point; > 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. That’s from the dissent. The majority ignored this like it doesn’t matter. Rules for thee but not for me.

lisper 6y ago
You should consider the possibility that the majority ignored it because it isn't true. DACA started in 2012 so the Republicans had four years to mount a legal challenge on those grounds. The fact that they didn't is evidence that Thomas is simply wrong.
- zaroth 6y ago
  The judicial history is complex. Expanded DACA from 2014 actually was challenged under APA grounds, the 5th circuit upheld the stay, it went to the Supreme Court, which ruled 4-4 on it meaning the 5th court ruling stood which held that it violated APA; > On November 9, 2015, a divided panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s order granting the preliminary injunction. The majority accepted the lower court’s findings that Texas has standing to bring this lawsuit based on the additional costs it would incur to issue driver’s licenses to beneficiaries of expanded DACA and DAPA. The court acknowledged that judicial review is unavailable under the APA where a matter is committed to agency discretion and that the government’s immigration enforcement priorities fall squarely within this category; nonetheless, the majority also found that the plaintiff states were likely to prevail on their claim that the federal government should have pursued notice-and-comment rulemaking because DAPA and expanded DACA determinations are non-discretionary. In addition, the majority held that the new deferred action initiatives are arbitrary and capricious because the federal government did not have authority to promulgate them under the Immigration and Nationality Act. [1] - https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/legal-challenges-executive-action-on-immigration https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/legal-ch...
ceejayoz 6y ago
The majority may simply disagree, and it's irrelevant to the legal matter before the Court - whether rescission was lawful. "He started it" isn't really a legal doctrine, either.

by zaroth 6y ago

lisper 6y ago

You should consider the possibility that the majority ignored it because it isn't true. DACA started in 2012 so the Republicans had four years to mount a legal challenge on those grounds. The fact that they didn't is evidence that Thomas is simply wrong.

zaroth 6y ago
The judicial history is complex. Expanded DACA from 2014 actually was challenged under APA grounds, the 5th circuit upheld the stay, it went to the Supreme Court, which ruled 4-4 on it meaning the 5th court ruling stood which held that it violated APA; > On November 9, 2015, a divided panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court’s order granting the preliminary injunction. The majority accepted the lower court’s findings that Texas has standing to bring this lawsuit based on the additional costs it would incur to issue driver’s licenses to beneficiaries of expanded DACA and DAPA. The court acknowledged that judicial review is unavailable under the APA where a matter is committed to agency discretion and that the government’s immigration enforcement priorities fall squarely within this category; nonetheless, the majority also found that the plaintiff states were likely to prevail on their claim that the federal government should have pursued notice-and-comment rulemaking because DAPA and expanded DACA determinations are non-discretionary. In addition, the majority held that the new deferred action initiatives are arbitrary and capricious because the federal government did not have authority to promulgate them under the Immigration and Nationality Act. [1] - https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/legal-challenges-executive-action-on-immigration https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/legal-ch...

ceejayoz 6y ago

The majority may simply disagree, and it's irrelevant to the legal matter before the Court - whether rescission was lawful. "He started it" isn't really a legal doctrine, either.