Federal Judge Upholds DACA, Calling White House Decision To Rescind It 'Capricious'

[VanceMack]

DACA is not law. DACA is simply an EO. Presidential EOs are not law. Presidential EOs are only valid until rescinded and any president has the right to rescind an EO of a former president. If this gets challenged to the Supreme Court, the federal judges ruling will be thrown out.

What is more significant is that since Obama initially signed the DACA EO in August of 2012, Congress has STILL failed to act. This is what our government has become...an inept congress and presidents that essentially must govern by EO.

 

[Cardinal]

this is getting ridiculous

judges are MAKING laws now....not ruling on them

if our country wants DACA as a law, we need to pass it as legislation...not a damn EO

and if one president can enact the EO, another one sure in the hell should be able to stop it

And it shouldnt matter if it is a D or an R in the WH....these EO's are not the way to run the country

This has nothing to do with the limitations of Judicial, Congressional or Executive reach. This is about getting rid of "others" by any means possible.

 

[Anagram]

DACA is not law. DACA is simply an EO. Presidential EOs are not law. Presidential EOs are only valid until rescinded and any president has the right to rescind an EO of a former president. If this gets challenged to the Supreme Court, the federal judges ruling will be thrown out.

What is more significant is that since Obama initially signed the DACA EO in August of 2012, Congress has STILL failed to act. This is what our government has become...an inept congress and presidents that essentially must govern by EO.

DACA in this case isn’t an executive order but an administrative action administered by memo of Janet Napolitano. It’s rescission was implemented by Acting Secretary Duke.

These administrative actions must comply with the APA. It’s not as simple as an executive order which you are quite right can be easily rescinded.

 

[Anagram]

This judge is making it up as he goes along. He ruled that Obamas E.O. Is binding on Trump. If this is the case, an E.O.has become a substitute for Congress. If that is the case, who needs Congress?

Not an EO. See above post.

 

[Rogue Valley]

DACA is not law. DACA is simply an EO. Presidential EOs are not law. Presidential EOs are only valid until rescinded and any president has the right to rescind an EO of a former president. If this gets challenged to the Supreme Court, the federal judges ruling will be thrown out.

What is more significant is that since Obama initially signed the DACA EO in August of 2012, Congress has STILL failed to act. This is what our government has become...an inept congress and presidents that essentially must govern by EO.

DHS has to abide by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA/which is law) in order to terminate the DACA program.

So far, all judges have ruled that DHS has not followed correct APA procedure.

Ergo, these judicial rulings rest on the incompetence of the Trump administration. But you'll let that slide because he's your boy.

 

[Rogue Valley]

The government is arguing that the APA doesn't apply here. The judges are ruling that yes, the APA does apply.

DHS can end DACA, but it has to follow APA procedure to do so.

 

[Anagram]

Judges have gained to much power in this country and this guy should know better.
He has no power to do this.

Getting rid of DACA is within the scope and power of the president.

He can resend any EO he wants.
It doesn't matter the reason and the judge has no ability to say he can't do it.
He is overstepping his authority.

Yet another judges that needs to be removed from the bench.

Judges do not have the power to make law and DACA is not a LAW.

this statemetn by the judge shows he has no friggen clue what he is talking about.

Department of Homeland Security had failed to provide an adequate rationale for why the program is unlawful

they don't need an adequate rationale. DACA is not a law to being with. It was an illegal EO signed by obama
trump has the constitutional power to undo it any time he wants.

all of these courts will be overturned by the SCOTUS.
and they should all be embarrassed.

This case is not dealing with an executive order. It’s dealing with an administrative policy set out be Secretary Napolitano and then rescinded last year by Acting Secretary Duke. These administrative actions do need to comply with the APA, which actually does include having a justification for them which is not arbitrary or capricious.

 

[Anagram]

Hmm... if a prior POTUS makes an EO or administrative policy (not a law passed by congress) that a judge also likes then no future POTUS can undo that EO or administrative policy. The fact that DACA/DAPA was never passed by congress as immigration law is ample justification for the current POTUS to end or amend it.

I can see an argument that it shouldn’t be that way, but as far as administrative policy under the APA goes, it is pretty clear cut that that is not sufficient reason for rescinding an administrative policy.

 

[chuckiechan]

Not an EO. See above post.

Then you are saying an administrator can change immigration law and it’s binding on a president? Does an APA trump an EO?

 

[gdgyva]

It looks to me like the lawyers at the DOJ omitted things on purpose, which leads me to believe the "never-Trump" is deeply embedded in our justice department.

Josh Blackman
‏
Verified account

@JoshMBlackman
Follow Follow @JoshMBlackman
More
"Judge Bates noted Mr. Blackman’s stance in his ruling, but pointedly said the government failed to raise that defense, and it wasn’t his place to make those arguments for the government." https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/apr/24/daca-restart-ordered-federal-judge/ … #DACA

the judge wants the administration to "justify" their actions

did President Obama have to justify his actions when he signed the original EO?

if not, why not?

and if he didnt, why does this administration have to now?

this is judicial activism at its core....and a political move

and it is one of the core issues with what is wrong with our country right now....

judges should rule on law...not MAKE it

 

[trixare4kids]

DACA is illegal because it goes against current law as written by Congress and signed by previous Presidents. Presidents do not make law. Only Congress has that ability. That any judge would determine otherwise is nothing more than judicial activism. And I rarely use that term.

Wouldn't you think an experienced federal judge would know this? He was a George W. appointee though, and we all know he was pro-amnesty so that alone, IMO, makes this decision suspect.
I am wondering if Judge Bates is a never-Trumper, like Bush?
You're correct in saying this is nothing more than judicial activism. Disgraceful move for the country.

 

[ludin]

This case is not dealing with an executive order. It’s dealing with an administrative policy set out be Secretary Napolitano and then rescinded last year by Acting Secretary Duke. These administrative actions do need to comply with the APA, which actually does include having a justification for them which is not arbitrary or capricious.

I would argue that the previous policy only derived it's power from an EO.
That EO is no longer valid which then invalidates the previous Policy which could never have
existed without the EO.

The Justification is simple. HLS does not have the authority to create or change law. The EO that was signed gave them a power they didn't have and shouldn't have had.
without the EO they no longer have the power to enforce a that policy.

 

[ludin]

I can see an argument that it shouldn’t be that way, but as far as administrative policy under the APA goes, it is pretty clear cut that that is not sufficient reason for rescinding an administrative policy.

It is if you are dealing with a judge that follows the law instead of political ideology.

 

[Anagram]

Then you are saying an administrator can change immigration law and it’s binding on a president? Does an APA trump an EO?

The APA is the Administrative Procedure Act. What is challenged here is Acting Secretary Duke’s memo rescinding Napolitano’s memo establishing DACA. Duke’s memo has to comply with the APA. Prior President’s administrative policy is certainly not binding, but rescinding it must be explained and it must not be arbitrary and capricious.

There’s no executive order challenged in the lawsuit. An executive order can be rescinded for any reason or no reason at all.

 

[Anagram]

It is if you are dealing with a judge that follows the law instead of political ideology.

A judge that follows the law has to follow the APA. Therefore, rescinding Napolitano’s memo has to be done for reasons not arbitrary and capricious.

 

[Anagram]

I would argue that the previous policy only derived it's power from an EO.
That EO is no longer valid which then invalidates the previous Policy which could never have
existed without the EO.

The Justification is simple. HLS does not have the authority to create or change law. The EO that was signed gave them a power they didn't have and shouldn't have had.
without the EO they no longer have the power to enforce a that policy.

Napolitano’s memo’s power wasn’t derived from an EO, nor could it be.

 

[Middle_Ground]

Yes. He is the chief law enforcement officer. The President already has the power of the Veto. So why should he have ever been given that power if he can simply order the enforcement of any law passed by Congress suspended? If a future President says that he does not wish to enforce the Civil Rights Act and issues an executive order to that effect, I think many people who applaud Obama's DACA executive order would quickly realize the full import of giving the President the power to suspend laws. I am against the President unilaterally suspending any law passed by Congress that is still in effect when he does not wish to follow that law. I think it goes against the rule of law, and is a perversion of the duties of the President who is sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

Here's the difference between you and I. I actually think it's wrong for either a Democrat or Republican president. I can like daca but still think the issuance of the eo was wrong no matter the reason. I can dislike the travel ban but still think the eo was wrong. I can like legalized marijuana is the right way to go but think it should be a federal issue of legalization and not state. You go right ahead and fight this eo, all the while supporting the current presidents eo's.

 

[Anagram]

the judge wants the administration to "justify" their actions

did President Obama have to justify his actions when he signed the original EO?

if not, why not?

and if he didnt, why does this administration have to now?

this is judicial activism at its core....and a political move

and it is one of the core issues with what is wrong with our country right now....

judges should rule on law...not MAKE it

An EO has nothing to do with this lawsuit.

 

[ultmd]

It never fails.

Every time..........EVERY TIME.........a federal court issues a ruling that conflicts with the orthodoxy or biases of right wingers, we get the same dumb comments about "judicial activism" and "judges making the laws instead of interpreting them", etc........from conservatives, most (if not all) of whom never even bother to read anything more than a FoxNews op/ed.....or watch any more "news" than an episode of Hannity.....before commenting on the subject.

It never fails. "Judicial Activism" is just ANY decision that doesn't support the right wing agenda.

This is a conservative republican judge, appointed by G. W. Bush, who is TRYING (if anyone actually cares to READ the decision) to HELP the Trump administration. All he has basically done is tell the Trumpsters that their initial EO was written so poorly that it was indefensible. All they have to do is go back and follow the blueprint the judge just laid out for them.......and he is primed to rule in their favor on this.

This is yet another example of how the incompetence of the entire Trump administration....from POTUS on down....just keeps getting in the way. And it's also an example of how/why no one take seriously the "judicial activism" whining of conservatives anymore.

 

[chuckiechan]

Napolitano’s memo’s power wasn’t derived from an EO, nor could it be.

I think this is the area of the swamp that irritates us all. It’s a “what the hell are these people doing to us over there?” issue that defies voter logic.

 

[Renae]

I wonder what their opinion would be if Trump signed an EO that suspended background checks for gun purchases?

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

Better what if a later president tried to EO that away and a judge ruled that the new President's EO was not valid?

 

[VanceMack]

God, this stupid talking point is so played out, Stop forking using it already, its so lazy, make an actual argument. Judges are the arbitrators of what is legal or not. that's how our government works, as written in the constitution.

Common sense, if someone make a law banning something, courts rule it unconstitutional or illegal, by defaut what they tried to ban is going to be legal. That's not creating laws. Just like in this case, DACA was the law, trump tried to rescind it (not by writing a law, but by executive action) without any reasoning, courts rule this is not legal, therefore it stands. They didn't write any new laws

THerefore DACA stands, THey didn't write any laws. But they have the right to determine what laws are already in place mean.

DACA was not and is not the law. All DACA does is dictates that the executive branch NOT ACT on existing laws.

 

[VanceMack]

It never fails.

Every time..........EVERY TIME.........a federal court issues a ruling that conflicts with the orthodoxy or biases of right wingers, we get the same dumb comments about "judicial activism" and "judges making the laws instead of interpreting them", etc........from conservatives, most (if not all) of whom never even bother to read anything more than a FoxNews op/ed.....or watch any more "news" than an episode of Hannity.....before commenting on the subject.

It never fails. "Judicial Activism" is just ANY decision that doesn't support the right wing agenda.

This is a conservative republican judge, appointed by G. W. Bush, who is TRYING (if anyone actually cares to READ the decision) to HELP the Trump administration. All he has basically done is tell the Trumpsters that their initial EO was written so poorly that it was indefensible. All they have to do is go back and follow the blueprint the judge just laid out for them.......and he is primed to rule in their favor on this.

This is yet another example of how the incompetence of the entire Trump administration....from POTUS on down....just keeps getting in the way. And it's also an example of how/why no one take seriously the "judicial activism" whining of conservatives anymore.

DO you realize how many of the federal courts decisions have been overturned by the Supreme Court? DO you understand why?

In 1996, the 9th was SO badly corrupted that 27 of 28 of their decisions were overturned.
http://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1070&context=circuit_review

 

[Anagram]

From my take on the last thread like this...

It's my understanding that essentially the problem is an administrative one. Essentially, the given reason for ending it...that it was unlawfully in place...is essentially not a justifiable claim for the EXECUTIVE branch to make and use as the basis for taking action. That doesn't mean that DACA cannot be removed via EO, but rather that it would simply need to be rescinded for a reason that actually is within the general purview of the executive branch to declare.

This is my understanding with the caveat that DACA being unlawfully in place could be a justifiable reason, just not for the reasons the justice department and DHS furnished here.

For example in one of their documents they stated that DACA would be subject to the same constitutional claims that were ruled against DAPA in the 5th circuit. But the 5th circuit actually expressly declined to address the constitutional claims once it found DAPA was in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

I haven't read through the whole opinion yet, but so far I agree with the judge that the government really just did not do a good job in justifying itself here. Of course, these deficiencies can be easily fixed.

 

[VanceMack]

DACA in this case isn’t an executive order but an administrative action administered by memo of Janet Napolitano. It’s rescission was implemented by Acting Secretary Duke.

These administrative actions must comply with the APA. It’s not as simple as an executive order which you are quite right can be easily rescinded.

Not seeing that as fact. Can you support that? The OP sites the Obama era EO and the federal requirements, not an administrative action of a current University president.

If this isnt even based on the actual EO but on a departmental operating procedure based on an EO, that would have even LESS legal relevance.