DACA Day
- Thread starter OfTheCross
- Start date
Y’all relying on the Racist ass Supreme Court ?!
hell, Clarence Thomas wife turned him into Clayton bigsby .
Should be interesting. Definitely a big case.
KillbertArenas
Superstar
DACA is done
OfTheCross
Veteran
Arguing for the federal government, U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco urged the justices to stay out of the fray. The administration’s decision to end DACA is not subject to judicial review at all, he suggested, because it simply ended a prior administration’s choice not to enforce immigration policy. Such a choice falls squarely within the agency’s discretion and therefore cannot be second-guessed by the courts, Francisco stressed.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was skeptical, telling Francisco that there is a “strange element” to his argument. You argue that the decision to end DACA falls within an agency’s discretion, she suggested, but at the same time you are arguing that the government was required to end DACA because the program was illegal, which would not involve any discretion at all.
Justice Samuel Alito was more sympathetic to Francisco’s contention that the decision to rescind DACA is not one that courts can review. When Theodore Olson, who argued on behalf of DACA recipients and civil rights groups, told the justices that they should start with a “strong presumption” that a federal agency’s actions are reviewable, Alito asked Olson how to draw the line in challenges to an agency’s exercise of its discretion. If a law enforcement agency has guidelines for when it will exercise its discretion not to prosecute, Alito asked, is the decision to tighten those guidelines reviewable?
Justice Neil Gorsuch was also concerned about how to draw the line between agency decisions that are and are not reviewable. He acknowledged that he was hearing a “lot of facts” and “they speak to all of us,” but he pressed Olson for a limiting principle.
The second question before the justices was whether the Trump administration’s decision to end DACA violated the law. Here the case is in a somewhat unusual posture, because everyone agrees that the administration could end DACA if it wanted to. As a result, the focus is largely on the process by which the Trump administration reached its decision, rather than the substance of the decision itself. In particular, several justices pressed Francisco on whether, before deciding to end DACA, the government had sufficiently considered the extent to which DACA recipients and others had relied on the program, and they suggested that the court should send the case back for more consideration and a better explanation than the Department of Homeland Security has provided.
Francisco resisted, telling the justices that the decision to rescind DACA would only violate the APA if the government had entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem before it – which it had not.
Olson and Michael Mongan, California’s solicitor general, agreed that the case should be sent back. Olson emphasized that the Trump administration did not want to take responsibility for the decision to end DACA, instead wanting to blame it on Congress and the courts. Mongan echoed that idea, arguing that sending the case back would require the Trump administration to issue a new decision that took ownership of the choice to terminate DACA.
But some justices appeared unconvinced that sending the case back to the lower courts would be a good idea or even make a difference. Gorsuch observed that the government could address the interests that would be affected by the termination of DACA in 15 pages, rather than in a paragraph, but it would take six more years, during which DACA recipients would remain in limbo. And Justice Stephen Breyer admonished Mongan that courts should not “play ping-pong with the agency.”
In his rebuttal, Francisco tried to cut off any further discussion about a remand, telling the justices that the government “owns” the decision to end DACA. We’ll know by summer whether he succeeded.
Justices torn, hard to read in challenge to decision to end DACA
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was skeptical, telling Francisco that there is a “strange element” to his argument. You argue that the decision to end DACA falls within an agency’s discretion, she suggested, but at the same time you are arguing that the government was required to end DACA because the program was illegal, which would not involve any discretion at all.
Justice Samuel Alito was more sympathetic to Francisco’s contention that the decision to rescind DACA is not one that courts can review. When Theodore Olson, who argued on behalf of DACA recipients and civil rights groups, told the justices that they should start with a “strong presumption” that a federal agency’s actions are reviewable, Alito asked Olson how to draw the line in challenges to an agency’s exercise of its discretion. If a law enforcement agency has guidelines for when it will exercise its discretion not to prosecute, Alito asked, is the decision to tighten those guidelines reviewable?
Justice Neil Gorsuch was also concerned about how to draw the line between agency decisions that are and are not reviewable. He acknowledged that he was hearing a “lot of facts” and “they speak to all of us,” but he pressed Olson for a limiting principle.
The second question before the justices was whether the Trump administration’s decision to end DACA violated the law. Here the case is in a somewhat unusual posture, because everyone agrees that the administration could end DACA if it wanted to. As a result, the focus is largely on the process by which the Trump administration reached its decision, rather than the substance of the decision itself. In particular, several justices pressed Francisco on whether, before deciding to end DACA, the government had sufficiently considered the extent to which DACA recipients and others had relied on the program, and they suggested that the court should send the case back for more consideration and a better explanation than the Department of Homeland Security has provided.
Francisco resisted, telling the justices that the decision to rescind DACA would only violate the APA if the government had entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem before it – which it had not.
Olson and Michael Mongan, California’s solicitor general, agreed that the case should be sent back. Olson emphasized that the Trump administration did not want to take responsibility for the decision to end DACA, instead wanting to blame it on Congress and the courts. Mongan echoed that idea, arguing that sending the case back would require the Trump administration to issue a new decision that took ownership of the choice to terminate DACA.
But some justices appeared unconvinced that sending the case back to the lower courts would be a good idea or even make a difference. Gorsuch observed that the government could address the interests that would be affected by the termination of DACA in 15 pages, rather than in a paragraph, but it would take six more years, during which DACA recipients would remain in limbo. And Justice Stephen Breyer admonished Mongan that courts should not “play ping-pong with the agency.”
In his rebuttal, Francisco tried to cut off any further discussion about a remand, telling the justices that the government “owns” the decision to end DACA. We’ll know by summer whether he succeeded.
Justices torn, hard to read in challenge to decision to end DACA
This is the real reason that Trump must go ASAP. He has succeeded in stacking the supreme court but it will only become more stacked if he gets more time.
I know y'all DGAF about illegals, but soon a case that matters to us will make its way to the SC.
And then you'll see how fukced up it is to let KKK pick the Supreme Court
I know y'all DGAF about illegals, but soon a case that matters to us will make its way to the SC.
And then you'll see how fukced up it is to let KKK pick the Supreme Court
A case that matters to us is coming tomorrow lol
KillbertArenas
Superstar
AZBeauty
Stop lyin' nicca.
ALOT of people on this site are ignorant politically and in general.
This is where the real human cost of the administration come in, not jokes on Colbert, late night, or #RESIST on Twitter, and it's not my anguish for her, it's another's that is the real toll.
Someone I really care about is going to be deported, or at least seriously risks it, if DACA is rescinded. She's been her since she was like 5. This is not a political person, this is not a partisan, she is someone who only wants to work and live in the US, and is now torn between two countries. It's an unspeakable outrage.
Someone I really care about is going to be deported, or at least seriously risks it, if DACA is rescinded. She's been her since she was like 5. This is not a political person, this is not a partisan, she is someone who only wants to work and live in the US, and is now torn between two countries. It's an unspeakable outrage.
Sucks for her but her parents broke the law and now she’s going to suffer. Lots of people have daddy’s who used to hustle and as soon as he got clipped, the man came for everything they had. Why isn’t anyone saying “it’s not fair to put his kids out on the street just because their daddy broke the law.”
Should have paid his application fees and got in line like a lot of MY friends did.
Great comeback you fukking clown, “ooh you sanctimonious ragamuffin, how dare you challenge my superior intellect!” Just what a pretentious and WRONG person would say.
The Fukin Prophecy
RIP Champ
Nobody should be penalized because of the actions of their parents...
Unlike their parents, it wasn't their choice to come here illegally, someone else made that choice and dragged them along...
These people were raised and educated in this country...It's idiotic we allow them to serve in the military yet only recently (I think June) were they given a pathway to citizenship...
You can't just deport somebody to a country they never knew...