PeliusAnar
Well-known member
So the ruling was actually a bit interesting. The left is saying they won since the program isn't ended, but the real kicker is that Roberts left the door open to ending the program, but in a way it can't be done immediately.
Supreme Court rules against Trump administration bid to end DACA program
I guess to start things off, what new things need to be considered? Trump offered an announcement before moving to cancel it and it has been a number of years. So if Trump says that he is canceling the program due to it being illegal and then gives a comment period of a year, would that be legal? Will this force Trump to consult with the Supreme Court to confirm his process for disbanding DACA is legal beforehand, will the Supreme Court even look at something beforehand?
The next issue is that this gives sweeping power to the Executive Branch to make unilateral changes to the law. Could Trump make another program called, Dispose Aliens Considered Alternatives, DACA, that registers illegal aliens and then moves to get rid of them from the country any way possible. It seems according to Roberts, that Trump could do that or any President for that matter.
Next, this opens up a lower court, like Texas to still issue an injunction against DACA on the merits of the program itself. At least that is the way I read things. The Supreme Court only ruled on the administrative aspect not on the program, so it seems feasible that Texas might pursue its case to have the program blocked once more. The judge initially held things up in order to wait for a ruling from the Supreme Court. This makes it seem that a judge could end the program by addressing its merits.
Finally, I want to say Roberts is trying to not make waves but in doing so he is trampling over our Constitution and the rule of law.
Supreme Court rules against Trump administration bid to end DACA program
In a 5-4 decision, with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the liberal members to author the opinion, the court said the Department of Homeland Security's move to eliminate the program was done in an "arbitrary and capricious" manner although they did not rule on the merits of the program itself.
"We do not decide whether DACA or its rescission are sound policies. 'The wisdom' of those decisions 'is none of our concern,'" Roberts wrote in his opinion. "We address only whether the agency complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action."
"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."
“The dispute before the Court is not whether DHS may rescind DACA. All parties agree that it may," the chief justice wrote. "The dispute is instead primarily about the procedure the agency followed in doing so.”
The Trump administration had argued that the decision to eliminate DACA does not fall under the purview of the APA because DACA itself was merely a decision not to enforce existing law against a certain group of people. The Supreme Court disagreed, noting that "DACA is not simply a non-enforcement policy" because it is an actual program where people apply to receive a benefit.
"In short, the DACA Memorandum does not announce a passive non-enforcement policy; it created a program for conferring affirmative immigration relief," Roberts wrote. "The creation of that program—and its rescission—is an 'action [that] provides a focus for judicial review.'"
I guess to start things off, what new things need to be considered? Trump offered an announcement before moving to cancel it and it has been a number of years. So if Trump says that he is canceling the program due to it being illegal and then gives a comment period of a year, would that be legal? Will this force Trump to consult with the Supreme Court to confirm his process for disbanding DACA is legal beforehand, will the Supreme Court even look at something beforehand?
The next issue is that this gives sweeping power to the Executive Branch to make unilateral changes to the law. Could Trump make another program called, Dispose Aliens Considered Alternatives, DACA, that registers illegal aliens and then moves to get rid of them from the country any way possible. It seems according to Roberts, that Trump could do that or any President for that matter.
Next, this opens up a lower court, like Texas to still issue an injunction against DACA on the merits of the program itself. At least that is the way I read things. The Supreme Court only ruled on the administrative aspect not on the program, so it seems feasible that Texas might pursue its case to have the program blocked once more. The judge initially held things up in order to wait for a ruling from the Supreme Court. This makes it seem that a judge could end the program by addressing its merits.
Finally, I want to say Roberts is trying to not make waves but in doing so he is trampling over our Constitution and the rule of law.
Last edited: