PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Lucifer on June 18, 2020, 07:35:11 AM
-
So a previous President created a program by executive order, without going through congress, and now that program is protected? But yet if Trump tries to do anything by executive order it's called "unreasonable" and "illegal"???
So the precedent here is executive orders can become law without going through congress? The executive can now make laws?
Hey, just another thank you to Paul Ryan!!
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-immigration/u-s-supreme-court-rules-against-trump-bid-to-end-dreamers-immigrant-program-idUSKBN23P2HM
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday dealt a President Donald Trump a major setback on his hardline immigration policies, ruling against his bid to end a program that protects from deportation hundreds of thousands of immigrants, dubbed “Dreamers,” who entered the United States illegally as children.
The justices on a 5-4 vote upheld lower court rulings that found that Trump’s 2017 move to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, created in 2012 by his Democratic predecessor Barack Obama, was unlawful.
Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court’s four liberals in finding that the administrations actions were “arbitrary and capricious” under a federal law called the Administrative Procedure Act.
-
I wonder if future Presidents will be prohibited from changing programs/whatever that were created by a President Trump EO...
-
I wonder if future Presidents will be prohibited from changing programs/whatever that were created by a President Trump EO...
(https://media.tenor.com/images/bfb104dc8fe8d45cdc230b33e3a7e9cf/tenor.gif)
-
So Trump can't cancel an administrative policy because he didn't follow the letter of the law to terminate something that was never law. Did I get that straight?
-
So Trump can't cancel an administrative policy because he didn't follow the letter of the law to terminate something that was never law. Did I get that straight?
Dissenting justices argued the same thing.
-
So Trump can't cancel an administrative policy because he didn't follow the letter of the law to terminate something that was never law. Did I get that straight?
YES.
In Thursday's opinion, Roberts wrote that when the administration rescinded DACA it "failed to consider the conspicuous issues of whether to retain forbearance" -- referring to the non-enforcement of immigration laws to remove those with DACA protection -- as well as the impact the decision would have on DACA recipients who have relied on the program.
"That dual failure raises doubts about whether the agency appreciated the scope of its discretion or exercised that discretion in a reasonable manner," Roberts wrote, noting that the administration could have scrapped the benefits provided by DACA while keeping the non-enforcement policy, but instead eliminated all of it without even giving a reason for ceasing non-enforcement.
"The appropriate recourse is therefore to remand to DHS so that it may consider the problem anew."
GRAHAM SAYS TRUMP 'RECEPTIVE' TO DACA PACKAGE AFTER MEETING WITH GOP SENATORS
The program was established through an executive order from Obama that the Trump administration argued was improper to begin with, claiming this should have been done via legislation from Congress.
Roberts made clear that the administration does indeed have the power to rescind DACA, just not in this fashion.
So is it the sworn duty for the SCOTUS to determine Constitutionality of a law or Administrative Procedure on how to rescind a law? Robert did essentially a similar thing before when the ACA was voted upon.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-rules-against-trump-administration-over-move-to-end-daca-program