Supreme Court rejects Trump over 'Dreamers' immigrants
23 replies, posted
[QUOTE]WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday dealt a setback to President Donald Trump, requiring his administration to maintain protections he has sought to end for hundreds of thousands of immigrants brought illegally into the United States as children.
The justices refused to hear the administration’s appeal of a federal judge’s Jan. 9 nationwide injunction that halted Trump’s move to rescind a program that benefits immigrants known as “Dreamers” implemented in 2012 by his Democratic predecessor, Barack Obama.
The protections were due to start phasing out in March under the Republican president’s action, announced in September.[/QUOTE]
[url]https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-immigration/supreme-court-rejects-trump-over-dreamers-immigrants-idUSKCN1GA1UO[/url]
[url]https://nyti.ms/2F4cW4G[/url]
[url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-declines-trump-request-to-take-up-daca-controversy-now/2018/02/26/4fb2e528-132f-11e8-9570-29c9830535e5_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_dacano-942am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.86dd4b8ff586[/url]
SCOTUS doing what's right
go talk shit of Twitter, Trump, I wanna see your little ego hurt
[QUOTE=SebiWarrior;53161737]SCOTUS doing what's right
go talk shit of Twitter, Trump, I wanna see your [B]little ego[/B] hurt[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry, that is the only part of him which isn't small.
It's beyond entertaining to see Trump getting cockblocked like this every time.
He's been gaslighting the country on this for months now, trying to convince the country that [B][U]his[/U][/B] decision to rescind protections for noncitizens brought here as infants as somehow being the Democrats' fault. He's been wweeting about how those mean nasty Democrats won't negotiate to protect the kids almost nonstop. It was a hostage tactic: "do what I want, or the kids get deported, and everybody thinks it's your fault!"
I'm very happy to see SCOTUS step forward and do what's right here, because not only does it reaffirm the rights of kids who have done nothing wrong, it also removes this bogus bargaining chip from the GOP's table, proves that the Democrats were always in the right, [I]and[/I] hamstrings Trump's ability to call this ruling out as unfair because of how aggressively he's been claiming to be trying to save DACA (not that cognitive dissonance has [I]ever[/I] stopped him or his voters -- reality has no place in Trumpism).
So: innocent children saved, Democrats rightfully looking good, Trump and the GOP looking like fools and scumbags. There's a win for the United States.
I can't wait to see how he tries to make the freakin' Supreme Court out to be the bad guys.
[QUOTE=torres;53161747]I'm sorry, that is the only part of him which isn't small.[/QUOTE]
I'm sorry, that is the only part of him which he thinks isn't small
having a big ego really shows how small a person you really are, and such a disaster's ego can't be that big. It's a matter of proportions :v:
Sad state of affairs when I have to praise the government not getting anything done
[QUOTE=torres;53161747]I'm sorry, that is the only part of him which isn't small.[/QUOTE]
Yes, but calling it a little ego will actually hurt it. He knows his ego is the size of a small galaxy, so calling it little stings...
[QUOTE=SebiWarrior;53161737]SCOTUS doing what's right
go talk shit of Twitter, Trump, I wanna see your little ego hurt[/QUOTE]
Sry but this is just them saying this has to go through the courts first, it's unlikely that 5 justices will uphold it entirely but the injunction will stand giving time for the DNC to hopefully get a better position, one that doesn't gut the immigration system at the same time
[QUOTE=Sableye;53162518]Sry but this is just them saying this has to go through the courts first, it's unlikely that 5 justices will uphold it entirely but the injunction will stand giving time for the DNC to hopefully get a better position, one that doesn't gut the immigration system at the same time[/QUOTE]
It's still a smack though, and I'll take any and every one of them
[QUOTE=TestECull;53162503]Yes, but calling it a little ego will actually hurt it. He knows his ego is the size of a small galaxy, so calling it little stings...[/QUOTE]
I don't think he reads fp
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53162552]I don't think he reads fp[/QUOTE]
He's actually a huge Rust fan.
[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53162552]I don't think he reads fp[/QUOTE]
we all know obama reads FP, right
[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;53161779]He's been gaslighting the country on this for months now, trying to convince the country that [B][U]his[/U][/B] decision to rescind protections for noncitizens brought here as infants as somehow being the Democrats' fault. He's been wweeting about how those mean nasty Democrats won't negotiate to protect the kids almost nonstop. It was a hostage tactic: "do what I want, or the kids get deported, and everybody thinks it's your fault!"
I'm very happy to see SCOTUS step forward and do what's right here, because not only does it reaffirm the rights of kids who have done nothing wrong, it also removes this bogus bargaining chip from the GOP's table, proves that the Democrats were always in the right, [I]and[/I] hamstrings Trump's ability to call this ruling out as unfair because of how aggressively he's been claiming to be trying to save DACA (not that cognitive dissonance has [I]ever[/I] stopped him or his voters -- reality has no place in Trumpism).
So: innocent children saved, Democrats rightfully looking good, Trump and the GOP looking like fools and scumbags. There's a win for the United States.[/QUOTE]
They didn't make any ruling on the legality of Trump's actions. They simply refused to skip the appeals court, something that they basically always do.
We probably won't see a real ruling because it wouldn't get to court before the expiration date of the executive order anyway.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53163997]They didn't make any ruling on the legality of Trump's actions. They simply refused to skip the appeals court, something that they basically always do.
[B]We probably won't see a real ruling because it wouldn't get to court before the expiration date of the executive order anyway.[/B][/QUOTE]
Could you elaborate on this? I don't recall the ending of DACA being a temporary measure, but that he put a 6 month expiration on DACA itself, which is being blocked by the court.
[QUOTE=Splash Attack;53165022]Could you elaborate on this? I don't recall the ending of DACA being a temporary measure, but that he put a 6 month expiration on DACA itself, which is being blocked by the court.[/QUOTE]
I remember reading that it had to be reapproved every 2 years or it expires, but I'll check on that.
[editline]27th February 2018[/editline]
So it turns out that each applicant has their deportation deferred for 2 years at a time. So the Trump administration just has to not re-approve their applications to effectively end the program. The vast majority of these applications are set to expire this year.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53165176]I remember reading that it had to be reapproved every 2 years or it expires, but I'll check on that.[/QUOTE]
I think what you might be referring to is that DACA recipients have to renew their status every two years by reapplying. The executive order was set to end the practice of accepting applications, so these people that are reapplying would not be able to renew their status. The court ruled that they must continue accepting applications while the order is under review.
Edit: ninja'd
[QUOTE=Splash Attack;53165191]I think what you might be referring to is that DACA recipients have to renew their status every two years by reapplying. The executive order was set to end the practice of accepting applications, so these people that are reapplying would not be able to renew their status. The court ruled that they must continue accepting applications while the order is under review.
Edit: ninja'd[/QUOTE]
I'm actually not quite sure what the court order is for. The Reuters article mentions that they couldn't end reapplications early, but doesn't say that they are prevented from denying all reapplications into perpetuity.
[editline]27th February 2018[/editline]
Also, I really do get the argument for DACA. I'm actually for it. Kids who were brought here shouldn't be forced to go to a country they've never even lived in. With that said, I can't imagine an actual legal position that would prevent Trump from ending it. The judge calls it "arbitrary and capricious," but it's no more or less arbitrary than the institution of DACA in the first place. One person likes the policy and the other doesn't.
The judge seemed to rule that the Trump admin didn't correctly identify DACA as being illegal, and that their ending of it was therefore incorrect... but it's irrelevant. DACA was an executive order done solely on the wish of the Obama admin. I see no legal reason why Trump couldn't just do the same to end it.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53165206]I'm actually not quite sure what the court order is for. The Reuters article mentions that they couldn't end reapplications early, but doesn't say that they are prevented from denying all reapplications into perpetuity.
[editline]27th February 2018[/editline]
Also, I really do get the argument for DACA. I'm actually for it. Kids who were brought here shouldn't be forced to go to a country they've never even lived in. With that said, I can't imagine an actual legal position that would prevent Trump from ending it. The judge calls it "arbitrary and capricious," but it's no more or less arbitrary than the institution of DACA in the first place. One person likes the policy and the other doesn't.[/QUOTE]
From what I understand, with DACA in place from the court order, the administration must process the applications and it seems like that means Dreamers will retain their deferred status. I'd have to do some more research on the details to get a clear answer, though.
As far as the ruling itself, "arbitrary and capricious" is a specific legal standard. The basic premise is that the executive branch cannot issue an order without there being some justification to do so.
[QUOTE]The Supreme Court explained (at page 2126) that while agencies are free to change their existing policies, they must provide a reasoned explanation for a change (quotes and citations omitted):
In explaining its changed position, an agency must also be cognizant that longstanding policies may have engendered serious reliance interests that must be taken into account. In such cases it is not that further justification is demanded by the mere fact of policy change; but that a reasoned explanation is needed for disregarding facts and circumstances that underlay or were engendered by the prior policy. It follows that an unexplained inconsistency in agency policy is a reason for holding an interpretation to be an arbitrary and capricious change from agency practice.
Because the agency “gave almost no reason at all” for its change in position, the Supreme Court concluded that the agency had failed to provide the sort of reasoned explanation required in light of the “significant reliance issues involved.” Id. at 2126–27.
So too here.
As there, the agency here reversed its interpretation of its statutory authority. As there, the administrative record here includes no analysis of the “significant reliance issues involved.” The parallel is striking. In terminating DACA, the administrative record failed to address the 689,800 young people who had come to rely on DACA to live and to work in this country. These individuals had submitted substantial personal identifying information to the government, paid hefty fees, and planned their lives according to the dictates of DACA. The administrative record includes no consideration to the disruption a rescission would have on the lives of DACA
recipients, let alone their families, employers and employees, schools and communities.[/QUOTE]
[url]https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000160-de32-da22-ad65-fffa4f5d0001[/url]
[editline]27th February 2018[/editline]
For more on the standard:
[url]https://www.foreffectivegov.org/node/2625[/url]
Let me start off by saying that cloudflair sucks. A lot. This is now the second time I've made this post.
With that said, I'm not understanding the reasoning given in the article you posted. Note that the people in the US under DACA have simply had their deportation deferred for two years. That's it. There is no legal obligation of the US government to continue those deferrals. They have every legal right to deport them once their DACA status expires. DACA wasn't some legal guarantee that they would be able to stay for an indefinite amount of time.
The judge summarizes his judgement as such, in the court documents:
[QUOTE]The following day, without prior notice, the Acting Secretary rescinded DACA.
The rescission was not based on any policy criticism. Instead, it was based on the legal
determination by the Attorney General.[/QUOTE]([URL]https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4345906/1-9-18-DACA-Opinion.pdf[/URL])
But he fails to recognize the clearly policy disagreements of the Trump admin with DACA. I mean, everyone knows there's a policy disagreement. It's not some secret. For the judge to deny that seems crazy to me. He continues to depend on this claim throughout the decision.
If we are to use that standard set by that article, then it would seem that a president needs only make their executive orders big enough as to make canceling them disruptive in order to essentially make law.
The disagreements between one administration and the next are not enough to justify policy changes. I will highlight this quote from a Supreme Court ruling again:
[QUOTE]In explaining its changed position, an agency must also be cognizant that longstanding policies may have engendered serious reliance interests that must be taken into account. In such cases it is not that further justification is demanded by the mere fact of policy change; but that a reasoned explanation is needed for disregarding facts and circumstances that underlay or were engendered by the prior policy. It follows that an unexplained inconsistency in agency policy is a reason for holding an interpretation to be an arbitrary and capricious change from agency practice.[/QUOTE]
This isn't about so-called "legal obligations" or "legal rights" as you're making this out to be. Based on the common law cited above, the administration cannot change a policy without providing justification for doing so. Not doing so makes the policy change [I]arbitrary and capricious[/I], thereby negating its legal standing and causing it to be struck down by the court.
[QUOTE=Splash Attack;53165352]The disagreements between one administration and the next are not enough to justify policy changes. I will highlight this quote from a Supreme Court ruling again:
This isn't about so-called "legal obligations" or "legal rights" as you're making this out to be. Based on the common law cited above, the administration cannot change a policy without providing justification for doing so. Not doing so makes the policy change [I]arbitrary and capricious[/I], thereby negating its legal standing and causing it to be struck down by the court.[/QUOTE]
That ruling doesn't say that a new administration needs to provide some legal or other justification. It says that they need to have a consistent reasoning. That's it. The quote even explicitly says that they can "disregard facts and circumstances that underlay or were engendered by the prior policy" as long as they have a "reasoned explanation" to do so. This becomes more clear when you read the entire quote:
[QUOTE]Agencies are free to change their existing policies as long as they provide a reasoned explanation for the change. See, [I]e.g.,[/I] [I]National Cable & Telecommunications Assn.[/I] v. [I]Brand X Internet Services[/I], 545 U. S. 967 –982 (2005); [I]Chevron[/I], 467 U. S., at 863–864. When an agency changes its existing position, it “need not always provide a more detailed justification than what would suffice for a new policy created on a blank slate.” [I]FCC [/I]v. [I]Fox Television Stations, Inc.[/I], 556 U. S. 502, 515 (2009) . But the agency must at least “display awareness that it is changing position” and “show that there are good reasons for the new policy.” [I]Ibid.[/I] (emphasis deleted). In explaining its changed position, an agency must also be cognizant that longstanding policies may have “engendered serious reliance interests that must be taken into account.” [I]Ibid.[/I];see also [I]Smiley[/I] v. [I]Citibank (South Dakota), N. A.[/I], 517 U. S. 735, 742 (1996) . “In such cases it is not that further justification is demanded by the mere fact of policy change; but that a reasoned explanation is needed for disregarding facts and circumstances that underlay or were engendered by the prior policy.” [I]Fox Television Stations[/I], [I]supra[/I], at 515–516. It follows that an “[u]nexplained inconsistency” in agency policy is “a reason for holding an interpretation to be an arbitrary and capricious change from agency practice.” [I]Brand X[/I], [I]supra[/I], at 981. An arbitrary and capricious regulation of this sort is itself unlawful and receives no [I]Chevron [/I]deference. See [I]Mead Corp.[/I], [I]supra[/I], at 227.[/QUOTE]
This decision isn't about an agency justifying it's change. It's about an agency being consistent in it's reasoning.
What is the "unexplained inconsistency" in the Trump administration's decision to rescind DACA? People may not like it, but it isn't inconsistent. As far as I remember, Trump has pretty consistently argued that congress ought to be the ones to decide the fate of the dreamers, not an executive order leaving them in limbo.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53165395]That ruling doesn't say that a new administration needs to provide some legal or other justification. It says that they need to have a consistent reasoning. That's it. The quote even explicitly says that they can "disregard facts and circumstances that underlay or were engendered by the prior policy" as long as they have a "reasoned explanation" to do so. This becomes more clear when you read the entire quote:[/QUOTE]
The justification I'm talking about is the "reasoned explanation" you're referring to. It's not about being consistent within one administration, like you seem to be talking about.
As for the lack of a reasoned explanation, it's all in the order that you and I have both been quoting.
[QUOTE]The agency reversed over five years of DHS policy, did so only one day after the Attorney General’s letter, and did so just three months after Secretary Kelly had continued the program (despite the Fifth Circuit’s decision and affirmance). The Acting Secretary failed to provide a “reasoned explanation” as to why she was “disregarding facts and circumstances which underlay or were engendered by the prior policy.” See F.C.C. v. Fox Television Stations,
Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 516 (2009).[/QUOTE]
The next several pages go into detail about how the reasons given were not adequate. I'm not going to just spit back the whole thing to you.
Furthermore, this isn't even the primary rationale for the rescission of DACA. The decision itself was found to be based on a flawed legal premise that DACA was itself illegal.
[QUOTE] "When agency action is based on a flawed legal premise, it may be set as aside as “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. This order holds that DACA fell within the agency’s enforcement authority. The contrary conclusion was flawed and should be set aside"[/QUOTE]
If you want details on that, again read the following pages (29-37) that explain why.
[QUOTE=sgman91;53165395]This decision isn't about an agency justifying it's change. It's about an agency being consistent in it's reasoning.
What is the "unexplained inconsistency" in the Trump administration's decision to rescind DACA? People may not like it, but it isn't inconsistent. As far as I remember, Trump has pretty consistently argued that congress ought to be the ones to decide the fate of the dreamers, not an executive order leaving them in limbo.[/QUOTE]
The "unexplained consistency" referred to is not at all what you are describing, and is in reference to not this court case but [I]Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro[/I] from which you are specifically quoting. The important take away in this quote is that like in the Encino Motorcars case, the agency failed to provide "the sort of reasoned explanation required in light of the 'significant reliance issues involved.'"
Literally all of this information is in the document. All you're doing is cherry picking phrases like "unexplained inconsistency", misinterpreting them, and ignoring the context along with the rest of the explanation as to why the rescission was blocked.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.