4 ms·

To add to this DACA could have been repealed in the recent SCOTUS ruling but due to improper legal proceedure it wasnt cancelled. I don't know if anything else

To add to this DACA could have been repealed in the recent SCOTUS ruling but due to improper legal proceedure it wasnt cancelled. I don't know if anything else would threaten DACA.

TheCoelacanth 6y ago
What part of the ruling said that DACA was illegal? My understanding was that they said that the current administration did have the power to end DACA, but that the justification they gave for doing so (that DACA was illegal) was incorrect, so it could not be ended until they gave a proper justification for it.
- qserasera 6y ago
  This blog is usually solid https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/06/opinion-analysis-court-rejects-trump-administrations-effort-to-end-daca/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/06/opinion-analysis-court-re... Ruiling: >Today Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by the court’s four more liberal justices, agreed with the challengers that the decision to terminate DACA violated the APA. Before they could reach that key issue in the case, however, they had to dispose of a threshold question: whether courts have the power to review the decision to end DACA in the first place. >Roberts reiterated that the court was not deciding “whether DACA or its rescission are sound policies.” Instead, he stressed, the court addressed “only whether the agency complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action” – which, in the majority’s view, it did not.
newacct583 6y ago
That's not right. They didn't rule on its legality at all (though they have in the past, in other cases, and let it stand as it exists). They ruled that the executive branch (under Trump) has the authority to cancel the EO written under the Obama administration (which is sort of a "duh" thing, of course it does), but that the justification provided for the action was arbitrary and capricious (in the technical sense defined by the Administrative Procedures Act). Loosely: any president can undo any executive action by a previous president, but you can't chuck a law simply because you don't want immigrants in the country. Really all the Trump administration needs to do is write up a reasonable plan for rolling this back and they can do it.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- qserasera 6y ago
  https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/06/opinion-analysis-court-rejects-trump-administrations-effort-to-end-daca/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/06/opinion-analysis-court-re... > Roberts then went on to the second step in the court’s inquiry. The Duke memorandum, he observed, concluded that DACA was illegal and should be terminated because it made DACA recipients eligible for benefits such as Social Security, Medicare and the ability to work legally in the United States. Roberts declined to weigh in on whether the Trump administration was correct in concluding that DACA was illegal I suppose we are in limbo here

To add to this DACA could have been repealed in the recent SCOTUS ruling but due to improper legal proceedure it wasnt cancelled. I don't know if anything else would threaten DACA.

TheCoelacanth 6y ago

What part of the ruling said that DACA was illegal? My understanding was that they said that the current administration did have the power to end DACA, but that the justification they gave for doing so (that DACA was illegal) was incorrect, so it could not be ended until they gave a proper justification for it.

qserasera 6y ago
This blog is usually solid https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/06/opinion-analysis-court-rejects-trump-administrations-effort-to-end-daca/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/06/opinion-analysis-court-re... Ruiling: >Today Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by the court’s four more liberal justices, agreed with the challengers that the decision to terminate DACA violated the APA. Before they could reach that key issue in the case, however, they had to dispose of a threshold question: whether courts have the power to review the decision to end DACA in the first place. >Roberts reiterated that the court was not deciding “whether DACA or its rescission are sound policies.” Instead, he stressed, the court addressed “only whether the agency complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action” – which, in the majority’s view, it did not.

newacct583 6y ago

That's not right. They didn't rule on its legality at all (though they have in the past, in other cases, and let it stand as it exists). They ruled that the executive branch (under Trump) has the authority to cancel the EO written under the Obama administration (which is sort of a "duh" thing, of course it does), but that the justification provided for the action was arbitrary and capricious (in the technical sense defined by the Administrative Procedures Act). Loosely: any president can undo any executive action by a previous president, but you can't chuck a law simply because you don't want immigrants in the country. Really all the Trump administration needs to do is write up a reasonable plan for rolling this back and they can do it.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
qserasera 6y ago
https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/06/opinion-analysis-court-rejects-trump-administrations-effort-to-end-daca/ https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/06/opinion-analysis-court-re... > Roberts then went on to the second step in the court’s inquiry. The Duke memorandum, he observed, concluded that DACA was illegal and should be terminated because it made DACA recipients eligible for benefits such as Social Security, Medicare and the ability to work legally in the United States. Roberts declined to weigh in on whether the Trump administration was correct in concluding that DACA was illegal I suppose we are in limbo here