DACA

Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts Saves DACA and Dreamers

Defying expectations, Roberts joined with the four liberals on the court to rule against the Trump administration's elimination of the program.

|

I'm very happy to report that I was wrong. I wrote yesterday that all the conservatives on the Supreme Court would go along with President Donald Trump's decision to scrap Deferred Action Against Childhood Arrivals (DACA)—the Obama-era program that gave temporary legal status to Dreamers, or folks who were brought to this country as minors without proper authorization—on the grounds that a president has wide discretion to set immigration enforcement priorities. But in a ruling released hours ago, Chief Justice John Roberts joined the four liberals on the Supreme Court and saved DACA.

The ruling was based on very narrow grounds that ducked whether or not DACA was originally legal (the Trump administration had claimed that it was not), or whether Trump was within his rights to eliminate it (there were good reasons to believe he was). Instead of answering those questions, today's ruling focused on the question of whether Trump followed the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act when he ended DACA.

As I wrote yesterday:

He [Trump] yanked it [DACA] suddenly, without offering a notice and comment period as required by the Administrative Procedure Act.

Interestingly, Obama didn't submit DACA for notice and comment before implementing the program either. However, two wrongs don't make a right. Moreover, The Atlantic's Garrett Epps explains that the two moves are not analogous because before DACA, its beneficiaries had formed no "reliance interests" in the program but now they have. They and their loved ones, many of them American, stand to lose something now and should have been given an opportunity to weigh in on Trump's decision. More to the point, DACA recipients shared their personal information with the government, including names, addresses, and employers. That same information could now be used to deport them. If the Trump administration had put its decision up for feedback as required, it would have had to at least put in place safeguards barring Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from using this information for deportation purposes.

The ruling notes:

We do not decide whether DACA or its rescission are sound policies. "The wisdom" of those decisions "is none of our concern." Chenery II, 332 U. S., at 207. We address only whether the agency complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action. Here the agency failed to consider the conspicuous issues of whether to retain forbearance and what if anything to do about the hardship to DACA recipients. That dual failure raises doubts about whether the agency appreciated the scope of its discretion or exercised that discretion in a reasonable manner. The appropriate recourse is therefore to remand to DHS so that it may consider the problem anew."

Translation: The administration acted in a sloppy and careless fashion and failed to provide a rational explanation for what it was doing.

The ruling acknowledged that the lead dissent penned by Justice Clarence Thomas (which Justices Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito joined) saw things differently. "In its view, DACA is illegal, so any actions under DACA are themselves illegal. Such actions, it argues, must cease immediately and the APA should not be construed to impede that result." Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a separate dissent.

However, Justice Roberts noted, that the administration's failure to accommodate the "particular reliance interests" made the elimination of DACA "arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA."

This is obviously great news for Dreamers because the administration does not have the time now to scrap DACA before the November elections. It is also good news for the vast majority of the country, including 69 percent of Trump voters, who don't have the stomach to watch folks who've built crime-free lives in America with their grit and hard work hauled away from family and friends into detention camps and deported to countries they don't know.

But it is also good news for the president himself because the ruling extricates him from a political trap of his own making. As I noted yesterday:

Having squandered the opportunity to pass legislation to give them [Dreamers] legal status, he will anger his hardline restrictionist base if he fails to deport these people when he has the green light. If he does deport, he will anger many Americans.

It's a win-win-win.

Update: But of course President Trump doesn't see it that way. He's already panning the decision and using it to rally his troops to re-elect him and put more conservatives on the bench:

NEXT: John Bolton Is Still Mad That Donald Trump Wouldn't Let Him Bomb Iran

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. When you call Roberts a conservative, what do you mean exactly?

    1. A Romney-style Conservative – he slightly opposes what the media believes unless he’s pushed into a corner.

      1. ★My last month paycheck was for 1500 dollars… All i did was simple online work from comfort at home for 3-4 hours/day that I got from this agency I discovered over the internet and they paid me for it 95 bucks every hour.

        See—> Money90

      2. Pretty much a Liberal Light.

    2. The arbitrary and capricious standard is one of the judicial creations made. It is a judgement on motivations against the executive. It has no basis in law. It is emotive.

      1. The arbitrary and capricious standard is one of the judicial creations made. It is a judgement on motivations against the executive. It has no basis in law. It is emotive.

        From the text of the APA itself:

        To the extent necessary to decision and when presented, the reviewing court shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action. The reviewing court shall—
        (1)compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed; and
        (2)hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be—
        (A)arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law;
        (B)contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity;
        (C)in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right;
        (D)without observance of procedure required by law;
        (E)unsupported by substantial evidence in a case subject to sections 556 and 557 of this title or otherwise reviewed on the record of an agency hearing provided by statute; or
        (F)unwarranted by the facts to the extent that the facts are subject to trial de novo by the reviewing court.
        In making the foregoing determinations, the court shall review the whole record or those parts of it cited by a party, and due account shall be taken of the rule of prejudicial error.

        https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/706#2_A

        1. Arbitrary and capricious mean what a judge decides they mean.

          “I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory,’ ” Alice said.
          Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t—till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!'”
          “But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument’,” Alice objected.
          “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
          “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
          “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

          Plus, by most of those definitions in the APA, DAC itself should have been stricken as being in violation of APA.

        2. (A)arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law;

          Now define abuse of discretion for the class. It is so broad it should be struck down.

          1. I will give you credit, I used judicial creation incorrectly, however the interpretation of arbitrary and capricious is entirely judicially constructed as it has no narrow definition but is left to the courts.

            So you got me Jeff. I used the wrong word but the intent of my post is still valid.

            Now argue and actual argument.

            1. My last pay test was $9500 operating 12 hours per week on line. my sisters buddy has been averaging 15k for months now and she works approximately 20 hours every week. i can not accept as true with how easy it become as soon as i tried it out.

              This is what do,…….► Home Profit System

        3. Also, the real issue is the misapplication of the APA that Thomas talked about in his dissent. The APA doesnt even apply here as the original DACA didn’t go through the APA.

          1. And had it been litigated on that basis, it could’ve been enjoined and ultimately struck down. But instead the administration decided to pen a new order.

        4. How strange that doesn’t apply to DACA itself. But stunning hypocrites like yourself have gone all in on a semi-elected monarchy.

          1. Exactly! The original DACA was capricious and arbitrary as well. Not rooted in law.

            Who will rid me of this bothersome Chief Justice?

            1. I’m all out of chippers.

            2. But that question wasn’t put before the court.

    3. I thought it was a joke. Is that giving Sickha too much credit?

    4. I guess a conservative is anybody to the right of Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

    5. Not Stalin.

    6. I suspect he means that Justice Roberts is thoughtful, considering his actions. That generally he feels the legislature is better equipped to address the problem, as he said in the opinion. I would say that Justice Roberts fits the old definition of conservative, not the new definition which is subservience to Trump.

      1. DACA is illegitimate by a standard that the “legislature is better equipped to address the problem.” Similarly his ruling on Obamacare when he salvaged a law instead of sending it back to the legislature.

        But consistency and logic aren’t the foundations of progressivism, are they?

        1. Nor of Pirate Roberts.

      2. The legislature had addressed the problem . . . by doing nothing about it and letting current law stand. Obama did not like this so he unilaterally created a new law. Now the SCOTUS is legislating by allowing the law to stand. Why do we even need a Congress anymore?

    7. The kind without a spine.

    8. Spot on. He is certainly not a conservative, but neither would be a leftist by any modern definition.

      1. He’s a statist. He is of and for the state. Whatever it wants to do, he’ll give them a legal framework to allow it.

        1. Bingo.

          Roberts is a statist.

          Too bad Thomas isn’t chief justice and Roberts isn’t doing something he is better qualified for. Digging a grave he can fall in for example.

  2. The administration acted in a sloppy and careless fashion and failed to provide a rational explanation for what it was doing.

    Trumpism in a nutshell.

    1. Could equally apply to Dementia Joe!

    2. The obama administration provided no explanation as it createdDACA outside of the rule making process.

      This was not even an EO but a memo at DHS.

      The court has now ruled that EOs are law if they dont like the reason for rescinding them.

      1. Bad Presidents can’t override good ones. Basically, Obama is President until an acceptable one comes along.

        How much of the popular vote did Obama get in 2016 (not 2008 or 2012, but 2016)?

        1. Mocha Man pen and phone. = GOOD, Orange Man pen and phone = BAD

          1. Hell, in this case it wasn’t even pen and phone – it was eraser

          2. “Orange Man pen and phone = BAD”

            It’s ’cause Orange Man Bad!

            Orange Man bad?!? He BAD, all right! He SOOO BAD, He be GOOD! He be GREAT! He Make America Great Again!

            We KNOW He can Make America Great Again, because, as a bad-ass businessman, He Made Himself and His Family Great Again! He Pussy Grabber in Chief!

            See The Atlantic article by using the below search-string in quotes:
            “The Many Scandals of Donald Trump: A Cheat Sheet” or this one…

            https://reason.com/2019/09/02/republicans-choose-trumpism-over-property-rights-and-the-rule-of-law/

            He pussy-grab His creditors in 7 bankruptcies, His illegal sub-human workers ripped off of pay on His building projects, and His “students” in His fake Get-Rich-like-Me realty schools, and so on. So, He has a GREAT record of ripping others off! So SURELY He can rip off other nations, other ethnic groups, etc., in trade wars and border wars, for the benefit of ALL of us!!!

            All Hail to THE Pussy Grabber in Chief!!!

            Most of all, HAIL the Chief, for having revoked karma! What comes around, will no longer go around!!! The Donald has figured out that all of the un-Americans are SOOO stupid, that we can pussy-grab them all day, every day, and they will NEVER think of pussy-grabbing us right back!

            Orange Man Bad-Ass Pussy-Grabber all right!

            We CAN grab all the pussy, all the time, and NONE will be smart enough to EVER grab our pussies right back!

    3. Unfortunately true. Trump needs to solicit input from legal experts. Same thing happened with the travel bans. Eventually he got it right.

  3. From the 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.

    1. Let’s hope the SCOTUS takes the same action on EPA regulations found to be unlawful.

  4. It seems to me that the Scotus is just place holding Obama’s EO’s hoping beyond hope Biden wins. It’s not whether Trump is right in principle but it’s the way he argues? Are you fucking kidding me Roberts? You spineless piece of shit you are creating a horrible precedent. Rules for thee but not for me fucking liberals. This is how you get someone far worse and more populist than Trump just a heads up.

    1. Seriously, FUCK Roberts. The dems and their deep state intelligentsia allies must have pictures or footage of Roberts.

      1. I think it underscores the point that presidential elections really do matter. So many of my fellow libertarians want to believe that it doesn’t matter who we vote for because neither the Democrat nor the Republican are libertarian. This is evidence to the contrary.

        Setting the rules of naturalization is an enumerated power of Congress. Those policies are meant to be subject to the forces of democracy–unlike, say, the First Amendment, which begins, “Congress shall make no law . . .”

        The thing that really adds insult to injury, here, is that when Barack Obama issued the DACA executive order, he actually said he was doing it because Congress “failed to act”, which is to say that he’s basically admitting that his rule is fundamentally unconstitutional.

        Setting the rules of naturalization is an enumerated power of Congress–not a power of the President of the United States–but in order to get a ruling on the merits on this, we need to exercise our right to vote. They will not rule on the constitutionality of DACA until they have no other choice, and we can give them no other choice if we reelect President Trump.

        1. Come now, Ken. The “libertarians” have clearly exposed themselves as progressives at this point. They are openly advocated for royal decrees at this point.

          1. The staff here don’t speak for libertarians.

            Some journalists write about cars without being a car.

            Some journalists write about libertarianism without being libertarians.

            I sometimes write about communism, but I am not a communist.

            1. “The staff here don’t speak for libertarians.”

              Good luck convincing the general public of that.
              I don’t even know of any other publications claiming libertarianism, and Reason has been its face for decades

      2. Could it be that the threat of court packing is having the same effect today as it did in the 1930s?

        1. Good question

      3. Man, the Bushes are now, what, 1 in 4 in decent Justices?

      4. Roberts is the head of the FISA Court and thereby the man at the top of the Coup against the President.

        And reports are that he’s on the flight logs for Pedo Island. Twice.

    2. Agreed, this one is going to come back to bite them.

      There seem to be two different court processes in this country. An expedited one from Democrats and a roadblock one for Republicans.

      Roberts – It’s not a fine it’s a tax. vs. We need not rule on the legality of the initial rule.

      1. Right. Our cases fester in the courts for years, but when a fairy gets a district court judge to rule that he’s entitled to get “married,” he gets his “marriage” license the very next day.

    3. Or a Civil War.

      1. Because if by winning an election the voters only get thwarted by the deep state (yes, including Roberts) then voting no longer works and differences get settled by force. That is how this ALWAYS works in the end.

  5. Most important of all, it’s great news for Reason.com’s benefactor Charles Koch. His dream of unlimited, unrestricted immigration won’t be fully realized until Joe Biden is in the White House, of course. But it’s nice to see progress in that direction even now.

    #OpenTheBordersToHelpCharlesKoch
    #52BillionIsntEnough

    1. >#52BillionIsntEnough
      There are only about 8 billion people alive on Earth. How can we find 52 billion people to fit into the United States?

      1. The old fashioned way…

    2. Shikha just yesterday: A Legal Victory on DACA Will Be Terrible Political News for Trump.
      Shikha Today: Yay! Trump didn’t win!

      Reason’s shills don’t believe a *word* of their own rhetoric.

  6. “The ruling was based on very narrow grounds that ducked whether or not DACA was originally legal (the Trump administration had claimed that it was not), or whether Trump was within his rights to eliminate it (there were good reasons to believe he was). Instead of answering those questions, today’s ruling focused on the question of whether Trump followed the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act when he ended DACA.”

    In other words, the Supreme Court kicked the can four and a half months down the road.

    This issue will be decided by the voters in November. If President Trump is reelected, he’ll send up another recision of DACA executive order following the Administrative Procedures Act to the letter–and the Court will be forced to make a decision sometime over the subsequent four years, probably sooner rather than later. If President Trump is replaced by Joe Biden, the issue will die for the foreseeable future.

    1. Roberts has now applied a standard that EOs created without rule making or flowing the APA have to be ended by following the APA when a court doesn’t like their perceived motivations for ending it.

      Truly an astounding new standard for Roberts. This may actually be worse than penaltax.

      1. I don’t think its meant to be a consistent rule applied to anything. Like I said, I think they just wanted to kick the can down the road until after the next election. If the Democrats win the White House, this won’t be an issue anymore–and they know that.

        1. “I don’t think its meant to be a consistent rule applied to anything.”

          As in, the rule of law is dead with 5 members of the court.

          It seems to be dead through much of government these days.

          Buy guns and ammo.

      2. when a court doesn’t like their perceived motivations for ending it.

        No, it’s when a court thinks people have developed “reliance interests” in the rule. Have they gone a different direction on another issue that makes you think they came to this decision because they don’t like Trump’s motivations?

        1. “Reliance interests”, like qualified immunity, is something the judiciary pulled out of their ass to get the result they wanted.

          1. The end justifies the arguments. Progs do this all the time.

        2. There can be multiple reasons for ending a rule. It only needs one valid reason to do so. The rule making process does not include language saying all motivations have to be investigated.

          1. Courts have ruled the opposite. It doesn’t matter how many valid reasons there are. If one invalid reason exists, they can block it.

            1. Lower districts have done so, largely by relying on the undefined animus, but it is not doctrine.

      3. Don’t blame this all on Roberts. He only has one vote. The only difference was that he was expected to have a little more respect for the actual Constitution than the other four justices he voted with.

    2. Yes = This issue will be decided by the voters in November.

      1. Yes all 3 of the voters who take this into account.

    3. No, if they adopt a Final Rule, it won’t even be litigated.

  7. “who’ve built crime-free lives in America with their grit and hard work hauled away from family and friends ”

    Outright lie or stupidity? It’s hard to tell with Shikha

    https://www.uscis.gov/news/new-data-shows-criminal-arrest-histories-daca-requestors

    1. By definition, 100% of DACA recipients are breaking the law.

      1. Interesting thought. Can a child be guilty of breaking an immigration law if they are brought here by their parents? Isn’t it the parents who are breaking the law? Mens rea aside, the child doesn’t have legal responsibility for their actions until they reach the age of majority, which in the US is 18.

        1. Tell me, what portion of the DACA recipients are under 18? And

          Mens rea aside, the child doesn’t have legal responsibility for their actions until they reach the age of majority, which in the US is 18.

          Strange, I must be imagining all those people charged with crimes before their 18th birthday. And those over 18 are breaking the law by remaining in the country.

          1. 1) People charged with crimes before 18 generally aren’t punished the same as those charged after 18, except in rare, extreme cases.

            2) Most crimes committed before 18 are sealed away when the child reaches 18. It’s as if they didn’t happen.

            3) The law is wrong and immoral in this case. Kicking an 18 year old out of the only country he has ever known simply because his parents committed a crime some number of years ago is a cruel and unusual punishment. Supporting this policy is heartless.

            1. 3) The law is wrong and immoral in this case.

              Who gives a shit? Robert’s argument is, moral or not, were (some of) the rules followed when the law was passed? As long as some rules were followed, it stands. Doesn’t matter if the prededing laws didn’t follow the rules, doesn’t matter if the agency doing the correcting is knowingly correcting an illegal act.

              As I pointed out before, Roberts decision is effectively that because the Emancipation Proclamation didn’t follow the APA, the slaves weren’t free until Congress passed the 13A. Swap out the moral decision of your choice, Brown v. Board, Buck v. Bell… morality doesn’t matter, procedure and popular opinion do.

              1. The emancipation proclamation only freed slaves in confederate states. Deleware still had legal slavery until the 13th

              2. My comment didn’t have anything to do with Roberts’ decision. I was responding to comments about whether the dreamers are criminals. First, do they currently have criminal records (apparently less than 8% do) and second can they be considered criminals for actions their parents took.

                SCOTUS should have declared DACA unconstitutional in, oh say 2013. Then Congress would have had to act and we wouldn’t be here today.

                1. My comment didn’t have anything to do with Roberts’ decision. I was responding to comments about whether the dreamers are criminals. First, do they currently have criminal records (apparently less than 8% do) and second can they be considered criminals for actions their parents took.

                  And my response when you point out that they didn’t do anything immoral was “who gives a fuck the morality/ethics” Roberts’ concern when rescinding DACA wasn’t over the morality but whether Trump followed the letter of the law. Did the DACA recipients violate the letter of the law? Yes. Full stop. It can be both a moral question and a procedural question, but it doesn’t get to be a moral question when it comes to violating procedure and then a procedure question when it comes to morals. It undermines both procedure and morals.

            2. Supporting this policy is heartless.

              It sucks when someone under 18 gets kicked out of a public school because their parents lied about where they reside. It is not the school’s fault.

              Nice hand-waving the responsibility away from the parents though.

              1. Yes, keep the kids and give the parents the boot!

            3. “Kicking an 18 year old out of the only country he has ever known simply because his parents committed a crime some number of years ago is a cruel and unusual punishment”

              Kicking a [fetus] out of the [womb] simply because his [father] committed a [rape] some number of years ago is a cruel and unusual punishment

              *I’m not making that argument, just pointing out its similarity

            4. This is a court of law, not a court of mortality.

              1. Nice slip. Fits the abortion comment.

        2. These “kids” are now adults over the age of 18.

          1. They were brought here as children, under 18. The crime was committed by their parents when they were children, under 18. And now people want to punish them for that.

            1. They remain in the country as adults in violation.

              1. What statute is violated by merely remaining in the country? Please cite by number.

            2. By the way, a large portion of DACA was not brought here under the age of 14. At that point kids can be liable.

            3. So they didn’t follow the correct procedure? Didn’t the Supreme Court just rule this as illegal?

          2. If you wait long enough every kid will become an adult. I tend to agree with the sentiment of DACA, but it’s even more important that this be lawful and constitutional.

        3. I’d be perfectly happy to give all the DACA kids their ticket to America, just as soon as their law-breaker parents are deported.

          1. Why make one depend on the other? We should just do the right thing in both cases. Let the kids stay. Kick the parents out.

            1. Because oddly enough you never get around to the latter.

              1. If only I had the power to kick people out of the country…

        4. Mens rea aside, the child doesn’t have legal responsibility for their actions until they reach the age of majority, which in the US is 18.
          Children can’t be prosecuted for their actions in the US?

          1. 1) People charged with crimes before 18 generally aren’t punished the same as those charged after 18, except in rare, extreme cases.

            2) Most crimes committed before 18 are sealed away when the child reaches 18. It’s as if they didn’t happen.

            3) What action did the child take? They were minors when they were brought here by their parents. Were they supposed to be aware of US immigration policy, run away from their parents and turn themselves in to the authorities?

            1. This is a similar situation to the question of what is to be done with inherited stolen property.

    2. Almost 8-percent of total DACA requestors (59,786 individuals) had arrest records as of the date the systems were queried, which included offenses such as assault and battery, rape, murder, and drunk driving, among others. “Requestors” includes individuals approved and denied DACA.,

      So 92% had no arrest record and further investigation indicates some (though not all) of those with arrest records were denied status under DACA. Dalmia never said all of them were crime-free. The program is supposed to be only for people without arrest records, but it’s hardly surprising that government bureaucracy let a few slip through anyway.

      1. 21 percent of DACA recipients have dropped out of high school, far above the national dropout rate of 5.9 percent, according to the National Center for Education Statistics.

        So much for the argument they need to be working to a degree..

    3. I don’t think she’s actually stupid.

    4. Nope, not hard at all with Shitma.

      It is Stupidity AND may be a lie.

  8. “The appropriate recourse is therefore to remand to DHS so that it may consider the problem anew.”

    “Oh, very well. We’ll take a few days and do it *absolutely right* this time.”

    1. Then 5 more years winding through the courts to be safe. Odds Roberts denies expedited review of any new rescission of DACA?

  9. An EO by one president is now binding law unless the next one jumps thru hoops? Roberts is making up law as he goes along. Just likes ‘Obama care’. Seems he’s not a defender of the second amendment either. This shows that just because you have a degree doesn’t mean you have intelligence or understand the written word . Or, maybe he does and wants to change the laws to suit his views.

    1. Well, the first president is supposed to jump through hoops too (and he should have). This decision means the current administration only has to jump through hoops if people have come to have an interest in the rule.

      Also, this wasn’t an EO, it was a rule.

      1. But as long as the ends justify the means, it’s good.

      2. It wasn’t an EO or a rule. It was a memo by the Secretary of Homeland Security.

    2. Obama never passed it as a rule..

      And your dependency argument is a giant fucking loophole for the executive to pass legislation without congress.

  10. It was nice of Roberts and the liberals to bail Trump out like this.

    Between this, the lockdowns, the rioting, Biden, etc. it’s as if the Democrats really enjoy having Trump in office and want to keep him there.

    1. This I agree with.

  11. after “It’s a tax.” Roberts cannot defy expectations.

    1. Roberts ruled on the actual fact, not about what someone calls it. It was a tax, despite all denials.

  12. Why is Shikha a writer for Reason? She’s not a libertarian. She’s a hardcore leftist. She doesn’t even pretend anymore.

    DACA is illegal to begin with. The idea or argument that Obama could unilaterally set immigration policy, sans Congress, via EO, but that Trump cannot rescind the same policy via EO is absolutely bananas.

    Fitting, for a banana republic.

    On a lighter note, at least Trump can now be the dictator the left accuses him of. He needs to get busy writing laws via EO.

    1. “Why is Shikha a writer for Reason?”

      Reason is the world’s leading journal of billionaire-funded open borders advocacy. Shikha Dalmia is the most eloquent proponent of open borders. It’s a perfect fit.

      #ImmigrationAboveAll

      1. #ImmigrationAboveAll*
        *exceptions apply to Israel

      2. Holy shit. The parody posted pretty much word for word how I would have answered your question, McToken. O.K., maybe not “most eloquent proponent of open borders”, but you get the idea.

        I expect to see Mr. Mxyzptlk walking down the street any moment now.

    2. If Trump starts writing laws via EO/rule, you can be sure they will be challenged in court, as DACA should have been when Obama ordered the rule be written.

      1. And Trump’s EO/rules will be blocked by a national injunction because a judge doesn’t like the divined motivation.

    3. While I agree with the policy goals of DACA, I agree that it was unconstitutional as an EO. Inasmuch as the federal government has any standing to implement immigration policy, it should be an act of Congress.

      Is United States vs Texas the only challenge to DACA that the Supreme Court has heard? It’s interesting in that it was a 4-4 split thus the court didn’t really issue a ruling on the constitutionality of it.

    4. You answered your own question:

      Why is Shikha a writer for Reason? She’s not a libertarian.

    5. Why is Shikha a writer for Reason? She’s not a libertarian. She’s a hardcore leftist. She doesn’t even pretend anymore.

      She’s not a writer. She’s an analyst. Not that that bolsters her credit any, she still says patently retarded things that anybody who’s done even a modicum of analysis wouldn’t say and it’s pretty obvious that any analysis she provides comes with a ginormous heap of personal bias. However, in the case of “SCOTUS will choose DACA over Trump” she was correct. But even a stopped clock is right twice a day, a blind squirrel finds a nut, and Shikha Dalmia, if given enough years at a typewriter will type something that will eventually be true.

      1. How can Shitma be an analyst? Doesn’t being an analyst imply that you are at least capable of performing analysis?

        1. Reading ‘Analyst’ out of normal occupation-speak and into media/political speak, I’m pretty sure it just means someone who thinks they can lie to you and get away with it on a tecnical level.

          For the longest time she called herself a conservative too. Well after it was obvious that she was left leaning even by libertarian standards.

  13. At this point it’s clear that Roberts’ ruling on anything will be NeverTrump bullshit.

  14. It’s a good decision. Legislating from the Oval Office needs to end, regardless of the party color of the person seated there. The continual issuance of proclamations is an affront to the rule of law. If you want whom a law applies to to change, go through the process of changing it. But the idea that one man can change who a law applies to on a whim is nonsense. Obama was wrong when he did it, and Trump is wrong when he did it. Both are wrong.

    The ideology that “Obama did it first so it’s okay if Trump does it” is fucking bullshit. That’s not an idea at all, it’s childish excuse making. If Trump wants to get rid of DACA he needs to go through channels. He’s not a king, he’s not an emperor, he needs to follow the system.

    1. If Trump cant end DACA, then Obama shouldn’t have been able to start it.

      Oddly enough, SCOTUS only seems to be interested in one half of the equation.

      1. The only way legislating from the executive is going to end is if Congress reigns things in. They have given enormous power to the executive in order to save themselves from having to make difficult votes. Only they can take that power back. And they won’t do it.

        1. Right. Good thing we only have two branches of government. Oh wait…

          1. I honestly don’t think it’s the judiciary’s position to stop Congress from delegating power. It’s the voters who should be doing that.

            1. Well if you believe the Constitution’s delegation of specific authorities to specific branches means anything and/or is binding then Courts definitely have a duty to stop delegation of the authorities assigned to them.

              The allowing of delegation of constitutional authority between branches is a violation of the entire premise upon which the Constitution rests.

        2. The problem is the “reigning things in” seems to consist of passing opposing, or at least different, laws addressing the same issue. Simply not doing anything and allowing existing law to stand is considered approval of orders issued by the President. I have to wonder how old do those existing laws have to be before they can be safely ignored.

      2. Well this case is separate from any challenge to DACA. The Supreme Court hasn’t ruled on the constitutionality of DACA.

        1. The constitutionality of DACA wasn’t the question. It was conceded essentially that DACA was created unlawfully which is sufficient.

          1. Thats the crazy thing – the (un)constitutionality of DACA has never been a question.
            Everyone knows it’s unconstitutional, as the guy who ordered it explicitly stated.
            But apparently all that matters is the feelz

    2. He’s not a king, he’s not an emperor, he’s not Barack Obama, he needs to follow the system.

      FTFY

    3. If you want whom a law applies to to change, go through the process of changing it.

      Which was never done for DACAs creation dummy.

      1. If Trump wants to get rid of DACA he needs to go through channels.

        Which DACA never did… did you even think before posting?

        1. It would seem that this case now, interestingly enough, would serve as precedent to rescind DACA if challenged in court.

          1. Actually you just need someone to legally challenge DACA as an APA violation. I think there is a Texas case on it. And that case had inspired the feds to try and end daca and avoid the suit.

    4. “Righting a wrong is wrong”

      Jfc…

  15. A big point that shouldn’t be lost here is that by upholding DACA for the time being (pending the next election), the Supreme Court is probably hurting the Dreamers.

    If the Supreme Court had ruled that DACA was over, the Democrats in the House would have a bill passed to protect the Dreamers by the end of the week.

    The Republicans in the Senate would be hard pressed to appeal to swing voters in an election year by supporting the deportation of the Dreamers. A bunch of them would cave in the Senate.

    President Trump himself might feel compelled to compromise on the Dreamers in an election year.

    This is all to say that one of the things DACA does is take the pressure off of Congress and the president to address the Dreamers legislatively. They won’t pass legislation to deal with the Dreamers until they have no other choice, and they won’t need to make a choice so long as Obama’s unconstitutional DACA executive order remains in place.

    The Dreamers uncertainty and place in limbo will remain as it is so long as DACA remain. The Court could have removed that obstacle, but now they’ve failed to do so.

    1. Good point.

    2. You are suffering under the illusion that DACA is popular with most of the voting population. It is not.

      Democrats indeed would have passed a bill in the House chop-chop to please the base. It would have died in the Senate to please the base.

  16. Fucking liberal activists treating immigrants like human beings! They’re not human! They don’t have papers! Who gives a fuck if their parents brought them to the country as children, and they don’t know anywhere else as home… They’re foreigners! They! Are! Fucking! Foreigners! They’re all on welfare! They don’t contribute to society! They’re from somewhere else and they don’t have papers! Kick them all the fuck out! MAGA! Trump 2020! Show me your fucking papers!

    1. We humans have a long history of punishing children for the actions of their parents. Who are we to do away with that?

      1. libertarians?

        1. I thought we were being sarcastic…

      2. “but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted. ”

        Ring any bells?

    2. What a surprise this comment has fuck all to do with any previous comment. Your straw man skills continue to overshadow any reasonable thought you have left.

      1. I’m supposed to read all the comments and then make one that is a thoughtful commentary on everything posted beforehand?

        *hangs head in shame*

        1. No, we know you never make thoughtful comments.

          But you claim to make sarcastic ones, even though only you think so

      2. Hyperbole, sarcasm, exaggeration, blah blah blah, excuse the fuck out of me for not being like hundred and ten percent serious like all the fucking time and stuff.

        Stick a baguette up your ass you humorless fuck.

        1. Oh, you went with this being sarcasm again.

          1. Oh, you went with being literal and having no sense of humor again.

        2. Posting the same shit repeatedly isn’t funny.

          1. He’s just bitching and trying to claim “joke” when called out.
            It’s weird

    3. Please see my comment above.

      This ruling probably hurts the Dreamers.

      1. I agree. Instead of upholding DACA, it just laid a blueprint for how to get rid of it with the court’s blessing. Conservatives should be rejoicing.

        1. It also reinforces the determination of Trump’s base to vote in mass.

    4. They are simultaneously (a) on welfare, (b) violent gang-bangers, and (c) stealing American jobs.

      1. We aren’t talking about your parents, Jeff. Or are we?

      2. Lol. Lying Jeffy the “individualist” thinks they all have to be doing the same things.

        1. Ah yes, the “radical individualist” who thinks almost exclusively in a collectivist perspective.
          I guess that could be a radical type of individualism…
          But not really

    5. I cant tell anymore. Is this sarcasm or your histrionics you claim is sarcasm?

      1. Last asshole to use the term “histronics” was Dunphy.

        Old-school cool kids know what that means, and that it is not a compliment.

        1. Ah, Dunphy. I don’t wonder at all what he would have to say about the current protesting and rioting.

          1. totality of circumstances or some shit

      2. I’ve only seen the term histrionics used by cops as an excuse to use violence. I wish I could say my opinion of you could get lower, but it can’t.

    6. Nothing screams libertarian more than unchecked executive power. We all know kings make the best rulers in the Libertarian Moment(tm).

      I got what I wanted and only had to throw away any pretense that law matters! #FreedomThruMonarchy!

      What could go wrong?

    7. This guy gets it!

      Sarcastic for Chief Justice!!

    8. As much as I agree with the policy aim of DACA, it is a horribly stupid fucking decision. But yeah, opposition to this ruling is because of racism and xenophobia Tony.

      Oh wait, you’re not Tony, you just sound exactly like him. Fucking sad.

  17. so now it is clear, traditional old school conservatives are the only justices to trust on the Court…we need 9 of Thomas…forget te moderates, forget classical liberal wannabes like Neil…just give me Thomas

    1. We can only dream for 9 like Thomas,

    2. Thomas is shit when it comes to most cases involving the police.

  18. So a Presidential Executive Order by one President now can’t be removed by a Presidential Executive Order by another President.

    If lawmakers wanted to save DACA, then the Legislature should have passed a bill into law. The Judicial branch should not be legislating from the bench.

    1. That’s what I heard on talk radio while I was out getting lunch.

      What the court said was that the President needs an actual reason and has to go through the process. The disagreement was with how, not what.

      Meanwhile Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh have kittens because immigrants bad and Trump good aauuughhh the sky is on fire!

      1. Daca was never passed through rule making dummy. You’re asking for a higher standard to remove a regulation than to begin one.

        Think long and hard as to what you are approving of.

        1. I approved of something?

      2. #RoyalDecreesForFreedom

        It’s a thing.

      3. But of course Obama’s admin didn’t have to have a reason nor did they provide one.

        And even with a reason if one had been provided there are laws on the books, namely APA, that were totally violated by DACA’s creation.

        That also is ignored and unpunished.

    2. I guess the constitutional issue is whether the one order is one the Supreme Court majority wishes the legislature had passed as a law, so it stays.
      Kind of wipes out any further expectation of the rest of us knowing what any law means.

  19. This is an amazing ruling. DACA is flatly illegal. Removing it is unconstitutional.

    Wait, what?

    Every day, we get another reason not to trust the government in any form or fashion.

    Soap box, ballot box, we’re moving closer to the third box every day.

    1. This is a bit of an amalgamated apocraphyl. Conventionally (Douglas-era) the three boxes were ‘ballot, jury, cartridge’, more contemporarily (Congressman McDonald-era) it’s four ‘boxes, soap, ballot, jury, and ammo in preferred order’.

      1. “apocraphyl”

        If this isn’t an actual word, it should be. Perfectly expresses those old, poorly explained stories that are dredged up to buttress a modern rhetorical point.

  20. Well, I guess we have to riot in the streets now.

    Oh, wait. Trump could just have the feds put out the rescission for comment, carefully evaluate the comments, and THEN re-publish it.
    That follows the law, and all the same lawyers get to bill a bunch more hours suing over that one. Trump could get it all done by November.

    1. No he could not. The notice and comment takes much longer than you know or understand clearly. Also, going through APA simply sets up another avenue of legal challenge where it will be enjoined by the 9th Circuit. It will take 2 years minimum.

      This is why Obama ignored the APA. He didn’t want to subject DACA to comment or legal review. It worked. If you like the policy outcome you can rejoice. But these sorts of things always blowback.

  21. My only question is, why didn’t Republicans think about challenging DACA in court on APA grounds when they had the chance?

      1. Shhhhh. Jeff doesnt like facts. Ruins his sophistry.

        1. I’m not a legal scholar, but I read that article to say that the case was basically ended because of Trump’s EO. With this ruling, I assume that now starts things back on US v Texas back at the district court level because it was a preliminary injuction?

          On June 23, 2016, the Supreme Court announced it had deadlocked 4–4 in a decision that read, in its entirety, “The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.”[37][38] The ruling set no precedent and simply left in place the lower court’s preliminary injunction blocking the program.[38] The case may reach the Supreme Court again after Judge Hanen has held a trial.

      2. That was about DAPA, not DACA.

        1. Special Pleading FTW.

        2. See Crane v. Napolitano

    1. Actually there was a challenge Crane v. Napolitano. The ICE Union head sued along with the State of Mississippi. The court found the state had no standing and that the ICE union didn’t exhaust administrative remedies first.

  22. more Thomas and Altios please

    1. Altios

      I’m pretty sure Sotomayor could pull off a decent rendition of “Nobody Knows The Trouble I’ve Seen” if she tried.

  23. The court just sanctioned an incredible precedent.

    Suppose Trump said he would shift administrative priorities from processing asylum claims to airports and the northern border, shutting all sticks along Mexico. No notice and comment period.

    The court just said that was okay, and that Biden couldn’t change it.

    1. That’s different.

      Because reasons.

      1. This, entirely this.

        In fact, why not just do it to show the whole country that process actually matters and not just your preferred outcome?

    2. This is not going to be treated as a precedent at all. I do not even see how it would be a precedent since Roberts takes pains to not get pinned down or articulate any actual standard to the decision at all. It simply stands for the idea that courts get to decide whether they think the government has adequately explained decisions to their liking. Other than that, there is nothing to take from the majorit opinion.

      With one exception, the continued rejection of the equal protection claims based on perceived animus seem to not hold much sway. That does not bode well for the TPS district courts

  24. Once again Justice Roberts threads the needle and saves the conservatives. Americans want healthcare, want LGBTQ people treated fairly and want Dreamers left alone. John Roberts understands these are not the hills for conservatives to fight over.

    1. Nothing the left does actually does those things.

      Healthcare – force people to buy a product.
      LGBTQ – give them rights to sue and extra liability protections for being lgbtq, not equal but super equal.
      Dreamers left alone – make them apply for benefits not found in actual law.

      1. LGBTQ – give them rights to sue and extra liability protections for being lgbtq, not equal but super equal.

        The term you’re looking for is anti-equal. If a company fires a straight white guy, the only options are redundancy, incompetency, or sociopathy. No lawyers, no courts, generally, the employee doesn’t even have to ask. For minority LGBTQs they have to sue their way through potential motives to find out if they’re incompetent, sociopathic, or not. Every day they show up to work the question “Am I only here because I’m LGBTQ minority?” is valid.

    2. What Roberts did was explain to all Americans that if he agrees with something, then it is constitutional. Nothing to do with pesky laws in themselves. They can always be interpreted to match what the progressives want today.

      1. John Roberts is like any other member of SCOTUS past or present he interprets the law based on information he has, and in a way he believes. There are interpretation of the constitution that all agree upon and these are found in unanimous decisions. Everything else is interpretation as shown by split decisions. Justice Thomas decision was also an interpretation of the constitution, it just did not carry the day. Where Justice Roberts is different is that he will be careful to insure he does not put SCOTUS in a bad light. He will not sacrifice the Court to please President Trump.

        1. No, he’ll sacrifice the constitution and law to appease the progressives who openly threaten to pack if they don’t get their way.

          1. This!

            Roberts is more interested in the Court than the Republic.

            See my previous posts on why we need an Amendment to limit SCOTUS to 9 justices, with fixed length terms, and with sufficient built-in poison pills to keep both the Executive and the Senate playing (reasonably) fairly.

        2. First you said that Roberts is trying to save conservatives from politically unpopular decisions. Now you say that Roberts is interpreting the law based on information he has. Which is it? It can’t be both.

          Robert’s decisions are patently absurd, both on sex and on DACA. And I say that as a gay immigrant. Destroying the rule of law as Roberts is doing isn’t helping anybody. I don’t expect any better from political activists like RBG; ad it turns out, Roberts is no better.

          Let’s hope Trump will have the opportunity to replace her.

    3. my god, what an intellectually vacuous post

    4. “Once again Justice Roberts threads the needle and saves the conservatives. Americans want healthcare, want LGBTQ people treated fairly and want Dreamers left alone. ”

      The problem is that ACA, DACA, and ENDA achieve none of those goals; they hurt the people they ostensibly help.

  25. This DACA issue seems somewhat complex, but when I dig deeper into it, it feels like the quintessential feel-good measure that causes more damage than it pretends to solve. Why keep existing immigration restrictions but then tack on DACA on the outside of it that probably incentivizes people dragging minors across the desert and creating the ‘horrible conditions’ we all claim to abhor.

    I think if Congress wants to fix this, they should engage with Mexico on a treaty to allow workers easier access to our job markets, drastically cutting the red tape for citizens of Mexico to come here and work (albeit under temporary circumstances). Or is John Kerry right, we just don’t do ‘treaties’ any more and instead just negotiate non-binding deals in back rooms with deep state apparatchiks.

    1. DACA is a feel good program for you and I, for an undocumented person that grew up in this country, was educated here, may well have served in our armed forces, has a job and life here it is significantly more important. This is what Justice Roberts was saying in his opinion. President Trump has the authority to end DACA, but with that authority comes a responsibility follow the APA law.
      Addressing DACA and other immigration issues is not treaty issue, it is legal issue that Congress refuses to deal with.

      1. But Justice Roberts did not apply the requirements of the APA to DACA itself. Which is the crux of the issue.

  26. Shikha has been fond of using the term “Pyrrhic victory” lately, so I’ll use it here: this was a Pyrrhic victory for the Dreamers.

    Robert’s weaselly contortions have ensured that there will be no immigration reform any time soon; DACA beneficiaries will remain in legal limbo for the foreseeable future, while Trump has been given another issue with which he can fire up his base.

    Roberts did this for Obamacare and the end result is a program that for all practical purposes no longer exists. DACA will end up the same way.

    1. That should be “Trump has been given another issue with which he can fire up his ever shrinking base”. As the author noted, the people who want to deport dreamers are a small group.

      1. I don’t disagree that it will fire up his base, but the idea that it’s definitively shrinking is dumb. Especially since, media narrative-wise, these people seem to have come out of nowhere in 2016 it seems just as likely that the media has ‘lost track’ of these people (again).

      2. I doubt that Trump really wants to deport the dreamers either, but he will use granting them citizenship status to get an attempt at immigration reform.

        1. He said and did as much before rescinding. He lifted a good portionof his MO right out of the Obama playbook. Proposed reforms, gave Congress a deadline, said what he would/would not veto and, when Congress failed to produce, wrote the EO. At best you could argue that he penned the EO and released it after Congress failed to produce but, either way… Congress was given the opportunity to prevent the issue.

          1. Trump proposed a very generous deal – amnesty for wall.
            The Ds wouldn’t do it because they both don’t want real resolution and are too petty to let Trump get the wall

  27. Shiksa you ignorant slut…

  28. “I’m very happy to report that I was wrong. I wrote yesterday that all the conservatives on the Supreme Court would go along with President Donald Trump’s decision to scrap Deferred Action Against Childhood Arrivals (DACA)”

    We’re talking about an order, created by executive fiat, that did an end run around Congress, that mandates that the US must take on illegal immigrants as wards of the state. And now we discuss SCOTUS saying Trump had every right to cancel it but that his reasons weren’t good enough. And the lede paragraph is celebration? Is Reason still a libertarian magazine?

    1. No

    2. not for 20 years… they a pop culture mag

    3. The utter contempt for their own readers is staggering. I don’t know of another publication that hates the very people who read them. I admit it is somewhat refreshing as most media outlets now clearly preach to the choir. But still startling to read this drivel and the open contempt.

      1. Only a matter of time before Google demonetizes Reason. Because of our refreshingly direct comments.

        1. I don’t know
          Reason’s a good little prog toady

  29. SCOTUS didn’t save anybody. All they did was prolong uncertainty and confusion, while making it harder for the executive branch to fix its own patently illegal acts.

  30. I’m confused. Ignore that this is about DACA for the moment.

    Assume the government is doing something illegal. Does it really need to give a notice and comment period under the APA to *stop* doing that illegal thing?

    How can the court *not decide* the legality of DACA in rendering this decision?

    And isn’t this basically carte blanche for the executive to act as a legislator, at least so long as its legislative activities create “reliance interests”? I don’t think I’ve ever seen a decision that metaphorically set the whole constitution on fire like this, at least not since Wickard v. Filburn, and this is way worse in pretty much every way.

  31. He’s one of the worst SC appointments. I’ll never forgive this bum for letting ACA pass.

  32. He’ll be after your guns next.

    1. I hope he gets a tumor, and I hope his house catches on fire, and his wife and kids get awful burns, and he has to watch them suffer while getting painful chemo himself.

    2. Yes. You can mark this down. Roberts is the reason the other conservatives did not grant cert on the 2A cases.

      1. Of course. I’ve known that for many years. I actually never thought it was Kennedy, as, while Kennedy was ridiculous regarding his obsession with buttsex and “dignity,” he was not as obsessed with “being liked” as Roberts is.

        1. Gotta get those cocktail party invites!!

  33. Roberts can always be relied upon to defend and protect the administrative state and the legislative state. He is a devoted statist.

  34. Why you don’t elect Democrats in the USA because it seems everyone of them believe, “Our mobster popularity agenda is above the law, the congress, and the judiciary and we will break it whenever we want.”

    After all; that is the very definition of democracy – mobster rule in all things. “Screw the USA system, screw individual rights, screw innate principles like don’t steal or kill. Mobster rules!!!”, they scream endlessly.

    Justice Thomas’s spot-on comment,
    “the majority erroneously holds that the agency is not only permitted, but required, to continue administering unlawful programs that it inherited from a previous administration.”

  35. Did President Obama act reasonably in giving lawbreakers certain right granted to America citizens and legal aliens?

  36. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the four liberals on the Supreme Court and saved DACA…..

    This implies they are in one group and he is in another. How many rulings does he have to JOIN the four liberals on before you guys start calling him what he is……a left leaning liberal.

  37. As usual, the constitution and law only matters to left libertarians when it suits their agenda. This one being to help the Democrats flood the US with people who have no connection to our past who will vote for more government every time. Reason is nothing but a bunch of phonies protecting the political class’s flank. This is why foundations like this should have to make all their income sources public. Reason sure acts like their money all comes from China and huge corporations that don’t care one wit about our nation’s future.

    1. Correct. Latin American mestizos don’t share our culture, our history, our IQ potential, our passion for the arts, culture, and critical thinking. They don’t belong here.

  38. So… Roberts once again says “fuck the plain language of the constitution”, and Reason not only lauded his decision, but they call him conservative to boot. Well, I guess no reason (drink!) To subscribe this year, either.

  39. So the act was never passed by congress per the Constitution just a President enacted it. And Trump can’t get rid of it? Seriously? Does the executive branch pass legislation?

    Here is the problem as Thomas Jefferson knew…the Supreme Court simply does not have this power of judicial review in the constitution. Isn’t there..never has been there. Only the States can nullify a federal law or executive order..period. At least that is what the Constitution should have explicitly stated if only Jefferson was not in France and Madison wasn’t so blind.. Hell let’s make it a 2/3 majority needed for state houses to nullify any federal law or order…I’d take that. The SC really has become a appendage of the a super federal govt. As for the people affected..I do feel empathy but in the end Congress needed to act on this..what is how it works here woke Roberts and woke Reason…or let’s just call the whole thing over and allow States to go their own way.

  40. “Reliance interests” can cover all welfare programs, loans, contracts, and jobs. Basically this formalizes the ratchet of government growth.

    Worse than Dred Scott? Worse than Kelo? Worse than Wickard?

    1. Not sure about Dred Scott, but certainly worse than the other two.

  41. At this point, if I was Trump I would be issuing executive orders for every crazy thing I could imagine.

  42. The ruling in isolation is correct. Trump does need to go through the proper procedures when changing regulations.

    However, I am very disappointed that the Supremes failed to rule on the fact that Obama also did not follow this procedure. You cannot selectively enforce a requirement.

    Either no notice is necessary and DACA can be eliminated or notice is necessary and DACA is void for not providing the notice in the first place.

    1. Exactly, it was not valid from inception. Should have never needed Trump to end it.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.