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

[JoeTrumps]

Can anyone point to another EO that wasn't allowed to be undone by another EO? It just doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[Anagram]

I was merely bringing up a similar situation, sorry I am working and didn't make that clear.

I don't think that's particularly relevant here though. The judge can only rule on what the government alleges. The government didn't allege in their reasoning that DACA had the same legal flaws as the expansion of DACA. Nor did they show any specific immigration act that DACA violated.

I've read the whole ruling now, and I have to say I agree with the judge that his hands were tied here. In the rescission memo and the documents mentioned in it, the government did not do a good job of showing that DACA was unlawful.

 

[Anagram]

Can anyone point to another EO that wasn't allowed to be undone by another EO? It just doesn't make any sense to me.

There's no EO in this case.

 

[JoeTrumps]

There's no EO in this case.

If it wasn't a written law and it wasn't an EO then what the hell what was it? and why is it so hard to undo?

 

[Anagram]

If it wasn't a written law and it wasn't an EO then what the hell what was it? and why is it so hard to undo?

DACA was an administrative memo put into place by Obama DHS secretary Janet Napolitano. The rescission was put into place by a memo from Trump's Acting DHS Secretary Elaine Duke. The administrative action is subject to the Administrative Procedure Act which does require there to be a non-arbitrary and capricious reason for the rescission.

The administration did not do a great job in explaining its reasoning. I think it's a close question of whether it's rescission reasoning was actually arbitrary and capricious, but there were a few ways they could have made this a slam dunk.

 

[gdgyva]

But DACA was not implemented by executive order, it was implemented via a memo created by Janet Napolitano.

AnaGram and Zyphilian have explained this multiple times already.

explained...

but i have one silly ass question

when did government departments get the "right" to make up administrative "laws" or memo's or whatever term you want to use

so can Trump's director's start writing their own laws? god i hope not....can you imagine the damage some of them could do?

i thought all laws had to go through congress and be signed off on by the president....

is this what we have now since no one is willing to work together?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

So let me see if I understand the anti-DACA crowd correctly-

Because Congress didn't create a law supporting the DACA policy that is ample reason enough to kill the EO.

Yes and kill it without any review whatsoever

Then the travel ban EO should be null and void. ALL EOs should be null and void, not just the ones one political lean doesn't like.

No, because Congress explicitly has granted the president the right to deny aliens or any class of aliens admission, plus the EO was put into effect and not withdrawn by the president

I if understand the Judge, the thought is this particular EO has been in effect long enough that now millions of lives hang in the balance and a simple withdrawal of the EO will have a devastating effect with little if any discussion- so it is deemed capricious.

exactly, he's making up law, these people were never legally in the United States and the DACA was supposed to be only a temporary measure. It was not a pardon or amnesty

What the rabid right forgets (when convenient it seems) that this grand and glorious Republic has a system to settle disputes and the process for DACA has just begun. Has the rabid right forgotten there is an appeal process and this one judge isn't the be all end all on the matter????

No one has forgotten such a thing, what is frustrating is that the people elected a new president and some judge is trying to stall that president's agenda because he politically disagrees and is hoping the appeals take longer then the next election cycle.

Given how Trump has played silly games with DACA over and over again I don't think he is serious about this, other than to ramp up his now minority base... eace

Irrelevant

 

[Anagram]

explained...

but i have one silly ass question

when did government departments get the "right" to make up administrative "laws" or memo's or whatever term you want to use

so can Trump's director's start writing their own laws? god i hope not....can you imagine the damage some of them could do?

i thought all laws had to go through congress and be signed off on by the president....

is this what we have now since no one is willing to work together?

It’s an open question whether DACA is a legitimate use of the DHS’s discretion. That wasn’t challenged in this case though, so the court could not rule on it. All it could rule on is whether the administrations reasons were strong enough they weren’t arbitrary and capricious. And while I think it’s a close question and this judge isn’t necessarily right, the government definitely did not do a good job of doing that.

 

[Anagram]

Yes and kill it without any review whatsoever



No, because Congress explicitly has granted the president the right to deny aliens or any class of aliens admission, plus the EO was put into effect and not withdrawn by the president



exactly, he's making up law, these people were never legally in the United States and the DACA was supposed to be only a temporary measure. It was not a pardon or amnesty



No one has forgotten such a thing, what is frustrating is that the people elected a new president and some judge is trying to stall that president's agenda because he politically disagrees and is hoping the appeals take longer then the next election cycle.


Irrelevant

That’s not what the judge is doing. The government has to comply with the APA. And having looked at some of his other opinions I’d be somewhat surprised if he even personally agrees with DACA.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

That’s not what the judge is doing. The government has to comply with the APA. And having looked at some of his other opinions I’d be somewhat surprised if he even personally agrees with DACA.

The APA is a bad argument, APA was never intended to deal with prosecutorial discretion in contravention to the existing law. no argument Trump comes up with will satisfy a judge willing to entertain that argument.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

It’s an open question whether DACA is a legitimate use of the DHS’s discretion. That wasn’t challenged in this case though, so the court could not rule on it. All it could rule on is whether the administrations reasons were strong enough they weren’t arbitrary and capricious. And while I think it’s a close question and this judge isn’t necessarily right, the government definitely did not do a good job of doing that.

Well if all you have to show to invalidate large portions of federal law is that how the president is enforcing it is arbitrary in the opinion of a left wing extremist then the entire criminal code is arbitrary and capricious

 

[Kal'Stang]

In addition to posts 14 and 16, I have to point out yet another thing that your remarks overlook: the executive has wide discretion in how it goes about enforcing its laws. This is the same thing that prosecutors exercise - prosecutorial discretion - when they decide whether or not to charge a person with a crime, which crimes to charge them with, what sentence to offer in a plea deal, etc. This is the same thing that police officers exercise when they decide whether to let someone off with a warning, write a ticket, arrest them for a crime, etc.

Claiming that Obama's EO "made a law" is simply false.

Obama's EO was an exercise of executive discretion in law enforcement. It is no different in nature than Obama's decision to direct various agencies to focus on deporting violent criminals, and no different in nature than Trump's decision to direct them to report everyone they come across. It is a decision about which people the law should be enforced against.

This is a discretion presidents have always exercised. It is the same discretion exercised in determining any priorities for agencies, in making signing statements on laws passed by congress, etc. And while there are different views in the legal literature about each category of executive discretion, Obama's EO is not in any way some unique thing that is "making a law" distinguishable from others.

That is simply false.



Trump can certainly reverse his EO and DHS can certainly go about rescinding the memo authorizing it, thus actually ending the program, but as an executive ("administrative") agency, it is bound by the APA - an actual law, passed by congress.

And if you want to get into the validity of administrative agencies, that's a whole different body of discussion.

If Obama's EO had actually stuck to simply not prosecuting those protected by DACA then you would have a point. But it went beyond that. It actually gave illegals papers saying that they were here "legally". That is what went against current immigration law. The claim that Obama's EO was simply a "prosecutorial discretion" is a lie meant to hoodwink those that don't know what it actually is. Prosecutorial discretion simply involves deciding to not do something or to actually bring forth charges. So the claim that DHS makes in that it is an illegal move made by Obama is certainly correct by the simple fact it went beyond discretion and into making law that went against actual law. Any judge that wasn't letting their own biases make rulings would see this and consider it a correct finding by the DHS and therefore wouldn't be blocking the rescinding of Obama's EO.

 

[Anagram]

If Obama's EO had actually stuck to simply not prosecuting those protected by DACA then you would have a point. But it went beyond that. It actually gave illegals papers saying that they were here "legally". That is what went against current immigration law. The claim that Obama's EO was simply a "prosecutorial discretion" is a lie meant to hoodwink those that don't know what it actually is. Prosecutorial discretion simply involves deciding to not do something or to actually bring forth charges. So the claim that DHS makes in that it is an illegal move made by Obama is certainly correct by the simple fact it went beyond discretion and into making law that went against actual law. Any judge that wasn't letting their own biases make rulings would see this and consider it a correct finding by the DHS and therefore wouldn't be blocking the rescinding of Obama's EO.

I'd like to point out that no EO is at issue here. DACA was executed through administrative policy, not through an executive order. Also that a judge can only look at what's in front of him/her. The APA requires that there be a non-arbitrary and capricious reasoning by the government in rescinding a policy like DACA. If the administration had competently argued that DACA was unlawful, they would have easily succeeded. Having read the ruling, I tend to agree with the judge. The reasoning put out by Trump's DHS and Justice Department was not the best. Like someone pointed out on the first page, there were some pretty strong arguments about DACA being unlawful that were just unargued by the government. And the judge simply cannot rule on those.

 

[Mr Person]

The APA is a bad argument, APA was never intended to deal with prosecutorial discretion in contravention to the existing law. no argument Trump comes up with will satisfy a judge willing to entertain that argument.

+

If Obama's EO had actually stuck to simply not prosecuting those protected by DACA then you would have a point. But it went beyond that. It actually gave illegals papers saying that they were here "legally". That is what went against current immigration law. The claim that Obama's EO was simply a "prosecutorial discretion" is a lie meant to hoodwink those that don't know what it actually is. Prosecutorial discretion simply involves deciding to not do something or to actually bring forth charges. So the claim that DHS makes in that it is an illegal move made by Obama is certainly correct by the simple fact it went beyond discretion and into making law that went against actual law. Any judge that wasn't letting their own biases make rulings would see this and consider it a correct finding by the DHS and therefore wouldn't be blocking the rescinding of Obama's EO.

The executive discretion is Obama deciding where to devote immigration resources. Choosing not to deport dreamers is no different in nature than choosing not to focus on deporting people who do not commit violent crimes. That is thoroughly within his discretion. You're just saying otherwise but that doesn't make it so. Nevermind that that has nothing to do with this case.

Do you have some legal precedent for that? I'm certainly not aware of any precedent saying that a sitting president cannot decide not to deport certain classes of people, and I have no idea why letting people have "papers" that say they are not to be deported because they are in the program is supposed to put anyone over the line. That's simply part and parcel of the decision regarding immigration law enforcement. I'm not aware of there being any precedent on the constitutionality of the enforcement decision or any related enforcement decision in another context. Whereas all the precedent needed to support what I said about what this case is actually about is sitting right there in the 60 page decision.

The DHS memo implementing that isn't itself "executive discretion". Obama could have had a chat over golf to tell the DHS what to do in this regard. However, as noted, it must follow the APA in either adopting or rescinding the memo. That's what this case is about.

:shrug:





I'd also note that it's a little precious to be told about believing "lies" that are told to "hoodwink" people when not one of the people I responded to in post 14 even knew what this case was about.

This is another instance where people want to see a certain political result, so they simply choose to characterize anyone doing anything that results in something else as having acted improperly.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

The APA is a bad argument, APA was never intended to deal with prosecutorial discretion in contravention to the existing law. no argument Trump comes up with will satisfy a judge willing to entertain that argument.

The Purpose of the APA is four-fold

1) to require agencies to keep the public informed of their organization, procedures and rules;

2) to provide for public participation in the rulemaking process, for instance through public commenting;

3) to establish uniform standards for the conduct of formal rulemaking and adjudication;

and 4) to define the scope of judicial review.

 

[Anagram]

The APA is a bad argument, APA was never intended to deal with prosecutorial discretion in contravention to the existing law. no argument Trump comes up with will satisfy a judge willing to entertain that argument.

The APA was intended to deal with administrative policies like this one. Arbitrary and capricious is not a high bar. It's just that if Trump's justice department had actually argued that DACA contravened existing immigration law they probably would have won. But they did not cite existing immigration law. They incorrectly cited a DAPA opinion in the 5th circuit. Everything else was conclusory statements. Solid reasoning that DACA was unlawful would easily not be arbitrary and capricious. I've read the opinion now and I have to agree that the reasoning provided by the government was extraordinarily lackluster, especially considering the arguments they could have used.

I think there are many arguments Trump could have used which would have satisfied this and other judges.

 

[Kal'Stang]

I'd like to point out that no EO is at issue here. DACA was executed through administrative policy, not through an executive order. Also that a judge can only look at what's in front of him/her. The APA requires that there be a non-arbitrary and capricious reasoning by the government in rescinding a policy like DACA. If the administration had competently argued that DACA was unlawful, they would have easily succeeded. Having read the ruling, I tend to agree with the judge. The reasoning put out by Trump's DHS and Justice Department was not the best. Like someone pointed out on the first page, there were some pretty strong arguments about DACA being unlawful that were just unargued by the government. And the judge simply cannot rule on those.

DACA was ordered into effect by Obama. Janet did not do this on her own and couldn't do this on her own as she didn't have the power to do so without the Presidents authorization. Correct?

Does DACA give out permits to those eligible to stay under DACA in the US. If yes then that is going against existing law as set forth by Congress. Which means its illegal. If the DHS did not make this argument then they're purposely failing.

 

[braindrain]

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.

You probably shouldn't call things out people stupid when it is clear you have no idea what you are talking about.

So how about you tells us what congress passed the law that created DACA.

Or is it that you think presidents can create laws.

 

[Kal'Stang]

+



The executive discretion is Obama deciding where to devote immigration resources. Choosing not to deport dreamers is no different in nature than choosing not to focus on deporting people who do not commit violent crimes. That is thoroughly within his discretion. You're just saying otherwise but that doesn't make it so. Nevermind that that has nothing to do with this case.

Do you have some legal precedent for that? I'm certainly not aware of any precedent saying that a sitting president cannot decide not to deport certain classes of people, and I have no idea why letting people have "papers" that say they are not to be deported because they are in the program is supposed to put anyone over the line. That's simply part and parcel of the decision regarding immigration law enforcement. You're just typing that stuff. Whereas all the precedent needed to support what I said about what this case is actually about is sitting right there in the 60 page decision.

The DHS memo implementing that isn't itself "executive discretion". Obama could have had a chat over golf to tell the DHS what to do in this regard. However, as noted, it must follow the APA in either adopting or rescinding the memo. That's what this case is about.






I'd also note that it's a little precious to be told about believing "lies" that are told to "hoodwink" people when not one of the people I responded to in post 14 even knew what these things are about.

This is another instance where people want to see a certain political result, so they simply choose to characterize anyone doing anything that results in something else as having acted improperly.

Again, he went beyond simply not deporting dreamers. He actually had them go through a process that cost them money, fill out forms of eligibility, and if they met those requirements were given permits to stay in the US. That is in direct contravention of current immigration law. And it goes beyond simply "choosing to not deport".

 

[Anagram]

DACA was ordered into effect by Obama. Janet did not do this on her own and couldn't do this on her own as she didn't have the power to do so without the Presidents authorization. Correct?

In a way. But it's the fact that it was an administrative action rather than an executive order that matters. That's why it needs to satisfy the APA.

Does DACA give out permits to those eligible to stay under DACA in the US. If yes then that is going against existing law as set forth by Congress. Which means its illegal. If the DHS did not make this argument then they're purposely failing.

They did not cite any immigration law at all in either Acting Secretary Duke's memo rescinding it or in the Justice Department documents referenced. If they had cited a contravening immigration law, they probably would have won.

 

[ludin]

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

It was the EO that granted DACA to begin with.
any policy could only be made after that.

if it was made before that then the policy is unconstitutional on the grounds
that the department does not have the ability to change law nor can their policies
ignore the law.

 

[Mycroft]

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

Once again, a federal judge rules against the Trump administration's numerous attempts to terminate the DACA program.

Related: U.S. Must Keep DACA and Accept New Applications, Federal Judge Rules - The New York Times

So...all a judge has to do is say, "You didn't explain it good enough" and that's the end, right? LOL!!

No problem. The Supremes will decide.

 

[ludin]

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.

When a judge steps outside the law and makes his own law that is judicial activism.
Judges do not have the power to make or create or change law.

The only thing they can do is rule whether the law or action is constitutional.

If the passing of DACA by EO was constitutional then the removal of DACA by EO is constitutional.
the president doens't have to justify his reasoning for removing it just as obama didn't have to justify
his reasoning for putting it in place.

 

[Anagram]

It was the EO that granted DACA to begin with.
any policy could only be made after that.

if it was made before that then the policy is unconstitutional on the grounds
that the department does not have the ability to change law nor can their policies
ignore the law.

That's not actually how it happened. There was no EO before DACA. DACA was implemented by a DHS memo. The only EO related to DACA was Obama's 2014 one 2 years after DACA was implemented, but that was halted by a federal court before being put into effect.

 

[Mr Person]

Again, he went beyond simply not deporting dreamers. He actually had them go through a process that cost them money, fill out forms of eligibility, and if they met those requirements were given permits to stay in the US. That is in direct contravention of current immigration law. And it goes beyond simply "choosing to not deport".

What is the actual language of these permits?

Where is the precedent holding that letting someone have a piece of paper that says they are not to be deported pursuant to the DACA policy somehow tips it over the line into, well, into what? And if as I suspect you have no such precedent, why do you even think that giving someone that piece of paper is more than choosing not to deport? The paper literally tells the authorities that this person is not to be deported. Having the paper isn't what grants DACA status. Applying for DACA in accordance with the DHS requirements is what grants status. The paper is just the symbol, in the same way that your plastic driver's license isn't what literally allows you to drive - that is instead the process you went through at the DMV and the DMV's grant of driving privileges. The physical license is just a symbol that communicates facts to the authorities. They still check it when they doubt it.

What's the "direct contravention of current immigration law" supposed to be anyway? Is there a provision in the law that states that no individual exercising executive discretion may fail to deport someone who is unlawfully present? Is there a provision saying instead that nobody shall be given a piece of paper saying that they are not to be deported due to an exercise of executive discretion?


If it was so clear cut, I rather think someone would have argued that and won. At the very most, there are some arguments that the program is unconstitutional. But arguments are not clear-cut facts, like controlling precedent would be.





And yet again: executive discretion was NOT at issue in this case. This case is about whether DHS followed the APA in rescinding DACA. So while executive discretion may be an interesting concept to discuss, let's make sure we're clear that it has nada to do with the ruling in this thread.