Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote the majority opinion, joined by the court’s four more liberal members in upholding the program, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA.
“We do not decide whether DACA or its rescission are sound policies,” the chief justice wrote. “We address only whether the agency complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action.”... Chief Justice Roberts... said the administration may try again to provide adequate reasons for shutting down the program....
In a dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justices Samuel A. Alito and Neil M. Gorsuch, said the majority had been swayed by sympathy and politics. 'Today’s decision must be recognized for what it is: an effort to avoid a politically controversial but legally correct decision,' Justice Thomas wrote. The court could have made clear that the solution respondents seek must come from the legislative branch. In doing so.... it has given the green light for future political battles to be fought in this court rather than where they rightfully belong — the political branches."
१८ जून, २०२०
"Trump Can’t Immediately End DACA, Supreme Court Rules."
The NYT reports.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
७७ टिप्पण्या:
Justice Thomas is correct.
Well then, so much for separation of powers. Over the next several months Trump should issue dozens (or more) of Executive Orders touching on many sensitive issues. That way, if Biden wins, he will encounter the same opposition from SCOTUS as he attempts to rescind those Orders. What a game!
Not a very convincing effort by Roberts. But the larger significance of the decision is that it makes it easier to attack administrative action on procedural grounds, and creates opportunities for an outgoing administration to enact traps for an incoming one. For the lefty immigration advocates who pushed this, beware what you wish for.
What? Trump doesn't get the court's standard benefit of changing the meaning of words to fit his desired outcome?
Quelle suprise...
Now Roberts is just rubbing it in.
Still think Roberts is a conservative?
An unsurprising outcome given Roberts' recent actions. This decision is utterly ridiculous. The courts have now put themselves in the position of determining what is a "reasoned" decision to revoke an executive order. It isn't like the revocation didn't already come with an explanation for why the program was being ended, it is just that the 5 justices didn't think the reason given was reason enough, and no guidance given on what it would take to meet that bar. I suspect there is nothing the administration can do to revoke DACA that these 5 justices would agree to. At this point, even an act of Congress overturning it would be ruled improper, the reason given would just change to something else.
Thee LGBTXQC decision just confused me. This is so clearly wrong that I really wonder where Roberts got his law degree.
Well, nice of Roberts to provide an outgoing Trump administration with a blueprint for all sorts of mischief. Though there's probably enough members of the Hawaiian Judges Brigade to suddenly locate a limiting principle to a SC precedent. Remember, the ratchet only turns Left.
CJ Roberts is a disgrace.
GWBush gave us Roberts and Obama.
I am going to pre-miss Roberts in honor of Althouse.
And RBG too.
Sooo, executive orders are permanent now ? Rubbish, if legislation can be instituted by eo, it can then by voided by eo. Grrrr.
Ruling out the exceptions to the rule mitigates progressive corruption at both ends of the bridge and throughout, and opens an incentive for emigration reform in the emigrants' home communities.
Still think Roberts is a conservative?
Left of center heading left or right of center with irreconcilable motives.
Should Trump ever be able to nominate another SC Justice, this ensures he'll never again nominate someone with even one Ivy League degree.
Em-pathetic appeals, diversity racket, democratic gerrymandering, political congruence, and public smoothing functions profit.
Justice Thomas is correct.
He usually is. A true blue conservative, before the colors were transposed.
Are you jumping up and down for joy!!!???? I know I'm not. I live in the Illegals Republic of New Jersey, and a lot of our taxes already go to pay for all things illegal. This is what a Sanctuary state looks like.... coming soon to a state near you!!!!
"But the larger significance of the decision is that it makes it easier to attack administrative action on procedural grounds, and creates opportunities for an outgoing administration to enact traps for an incoming one. For the lefty immigration advocates who pushed this, beware what you wish for."
The problem, though, is that as soon as it is a Democrat in the Oval Office, this decision will be ignored for purposes of issuing and revoking E.O.s.
Great. Today I find out I live in a republican democratic monarchy. You know, if we just want one person to make laws for us, we don't need the five of you.
Roberts decided he didnt want Judge Sullivan to have all the Resistance fun.
Hey, that Biden dude is very crafty. I bet he coulda done it!
Like the citizen Census question, Trump’s executive order would have been perfectly Constitutional if he’d made a minimally competent effort to follow the executive rule-making process. I understand Trump arrived at the White House in January 2017 believing the media’s lies that an American President is some kind of all-powerful emperor who rules by decree, but three years in Trump has no excuse.
Trump insulted Roberts once, referring to judges by who appointed them. So Roberts insults him back.
Never appoint a judge who doesn't have a sense of humor. They're assholes.
Chief Justice Roberts... said the administration may try again to provide adequate reasons for shutting down the program....
Since it was created by executive order, the only reason Trump should need is: "Because I want to."
it has given the green light for future political battles to be fought in this court
Exactly what Roberts said he wanted to avoid. Liar or idiot?
This case makes a mockery of the rule of law. Apparently the new rule is that an exercise of prosecutorial discretion by a Democratic president is unreviewable by the courts, but an exercise of prosecutorial discretion by a Republican president (to undo the prior exercise) is reviewable for abuse of discretion under the Administrative Procedure Act. This is shameful and outrageous.
This is so clearly wrong that I really wonder where Roberts got his law degree.
I wonder what the left has on him.
he studied under lawrence tribe,
What Michael K said....
GingerBeer said...
Should Trump ever be able to nominate another SC Justice, this ensures he'll never again nominate someone with even one Ivy League degree.
Thomas went to Yale, right? You can't lose 'em all.
6/18/20, 1:58 PM
n.n said...
Em-pathetic appeals, diversity racket, democratic gerrymandering, political congruence, and public smoothing functions profit.
Justice Thomas is correct.
He usually is. A true blue conservative, before the colors were transposed.
6/18/20, 2:01 PM
Next nomination, I'd just ask Thomas who he likes.
Earnest Prole: "Like the citizen Census question, Trump’s executive order would have been perfectly Constitutional if he’d made a minimally competent effort to follow the executive rule-making process."
Obama literally created a law all by himself following no procedures at all.
Earnest Prole: "I understand Trump arrived at the White House in January 2017 believing the media’s lies that an American President is some kind of all-powerful emperor who rules by decree,...."
Obama literally ruled by decree.
Bogus rulings aside, I took this as a temporary bump in the road like when Trump's travel ban met judicial resistance. Tweak language here and there and the order stands.
Trump apparently learned nothing from his disastrous first travel ban, which was so hastily composed that it banned green-card holding relatives of American citizens from returning to their lawful homes. A second, more careful draft proved perfectly constitutional.
Tough week for SCOTUS.
"Obama literally ruled by decree" so true Drago. But the SCOTUS and Roberts in particular have made it clear Trump doesn't have the proper pants crease and that he is on double secret probation whenever he upturns Obama EO's so he just needs to recalibrate and tighten up things as he moves forward.
And to be honest, crap like this only helps rev up the country that there is actually a two tier justice system (one for the rest of us and one for the swamp) and that Trump needs more SCOTUS appointments once more vacancies become available next term.
I wonder, though, if this is good for Trump's re-election. After all, maybe some liberals who were freaked out by the conservative Court will relax and not bother to vote. I don't see why conservatives would not bother. A more liberal Court would be a whole lot worse.
Seems to me as BleachBit-and-Hammers said so succinctly, Justice Thomas is correct.
In the immortal words of night school educated lawyer Vinny Gambini that applies to the majority opinion: Everything that guy just said is bullshit.
Seems to me CJ Roberts and the other liberals both on the SC and holding other judgeships are working overtime to destroy the legitimacy of the entire U.S. legal system by ignoring the Constitution, the document on which their legitimacy lies.
Earnest Prole: "Trump apparently learned nothing from his disastrous first travel ban, which was so hastily composed that it banned green-card holding relatives of American citizens from returning to their lawful homes. A second, more careful draft proved perfectly constitutional.
Roberts has sent a very clear message that there is nothing Trump can do to get the SC to allow a rescinding of a clearly unconstitutional, decree out of nothing, law created with a pen by obama.
Go ahead and pretend that this resistance move by Roberts is some sort of principled application of the law.
It isn't. To even suggest that is laughable.
Roberts is telling Trump to lump it and obama's DACA ruling will be with us forever. Period.
Roberts has joined Team Hawaiian Judge where Trump will not be allowed to exercise the basic and well established prerogatives and authority of the Presidency.
Gk1: "Bogus rulings aside, I took this as a temporary bump in the road like when Trump's travel ban met judicial resistance. Tweak language here and there and the order stands."
I disagree strongly.
As with the obamacare ruling, Roberts is going to concoct whatever rationale is required to say no to that "instance" of a Trump recision effort while all the while saying "but gee whiz, if only you'd have taken a bit more time or effort to do (insert latest excuse here)" because, after all, we all know this is an unconstitutional decree/EO by obama........
Everybody's bagging on Roberts. He's a coward and an embarrassment to the court, sure, but this was the majority opinion. Why do the liberal justices get a pass? To say we expect no better is no answer even if true. They have the same obligations as any other justice, and yet we are not incensed by what they've done.
You can't win 'em all
Every time Trump wants to issue an eo he needs to get the most expensive lawyer available to write a 500 page brief of Shakespearian grandure and have a thirty day public comment period, then do what he wants.
The Republican Senate should pass a bill that amends the APA to say "None of the requirements this law imposes on administrative action shall apply to actions that revoke or reverse previous illegal actions." Then dare the House to defend a vote against it.
This is the kind of thing that makes all the flowery ideas about "a nation of laws" and a "constitutional republic" sound like just more bullshit, and I'm getting pretty close to accepting that, which means arms in the right hands are the only real keepers of civilization. That is an uncomfortable and sad realization. It means that even protecting the good and innocent will always require killing a lot of people sooner or later. I guess we will never get past that. This identical action would have been upheld by any flavor of court under Obama. It just would have.
You folks thinking this creates precedent that will bind future presidents and courts are wrong.
This is an application of the "Trump Rule." Nothing more than that. No executive branch action is safe from ad hoc nullification by one of a few thousand federal judges if it involves Trump. That's the only reason needed.
Drago said...
Obama literally created a law all by himself following no procedures at all.
6/18/20, 3:38 PM
A grossly illegal law that Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Alito correctly said could be repealed if the AG and DHS found it to be illegal. They are mystified about the upholding, but Thomas bluntly calls it an attempt to avoid the legally correct decision.
There is no need, at all, to acknowledge that the illegal alien "children" have any right to stay here. They never did. Action on their deportation was deferred and there is zero legal action to maintain that deferral, especially considering the original impetus was an illegal executive order masquerading as legislation. The original termination was from Attorney-General Sessions, not Trump, who correctly said that the entire program was unconstitutional. Earnest Prole ignores that because he is a rancid ASSHOLE who subscribes to the notion that three Judeo-Christians can ignore the Constitution in declaring their illegal decrees permanent, but I'm content to realize that the rule of law is stone-cold dead. If Trump ordered the building burned with everyone inside, I'd be pouring on the gasoline.
This is what lawyers have done to the country. The administrative state is now more powerful than a Republican president. F-ing ridiculous.
In Trump's terms so far, I've now lost respect for the FBI, NSA, CIA and the courts. Are there any other govt bureaucracies left that I should respect?
Like the citizen Census question, Trump’s executive order would have been perfectly Constitutional if he’d made a minimally competent effort to follow the executive rule-making process.
Oh, bullshit. If Roberts (and the other leftists on SCOTUS) hadn't come up with this excuse, they would've created another one.
Chief Justice Roberts... said the administration may try again to provide adequate reasons for shutting down the program....
And then wait three more fucking years while Roberts gets around to reading them.
Drago said...
Earnest Prole: "Trump apparently learned nothing from his disastrous first travel ban, which was so hastily composed that it banned green-card holding relatives of American citizens from returning to their lawful homes. A second, more careful draft proved perfectly constitutional.
***************
Yeah. AS IF Obama's decree was constitutional in the first place.
10 Times Barack Obama Acknowledged That DACA Was Unconstitutional
Qualified immunity is a judge made rule. Trump should issue a presidential order banning qualified immunity. Especially judicial immunity. Then rescind DACA and every presidential order issued by Obama. Then follow it by impounding all federal aid to state and their subdivisions that allow sanctuary cities and no bail laws for felons.
When the Hawaiian district rules against Trump, issue an executive order that that in these instances the executive branch does not recognize the authority of the lower courts. The Democrats will impeach him and the Republicans will acquit him and the courts will learn their lesson that their job is to follow the constitution, the law as written and the written language as understood by the framers or the legislature.
No matter how many times liberals tell you, show you, PROVE to you they play by a different set of rules than everyone else, people are still certain someday it'll happen.
Maybe if they keep pointing it out...or write strongly worded letters to the editor.
Tell me again how this one-way ratchet works?
Nichevo: Thomas went to Yale Law, as did Gorsuch & Kavanaugh. Roberts, Kennedy, & Souter are all Harvard Law. Given that an Ivy League degree is at best a crapshoot for an R president, why would any ever nominate one again? Trump's SC list includes graduates of Notre Dame, Duke, Cal Berkely (Are you permitted to say Boalt Hall anymore?), and Michigan. I'm betting the Republic would survive an non-Ivy Associate Justice. Maybe even thrive.
I've now lost respect for the FBI, NSA, CIA and the courts. Are there any other govt bureaucracies left that I should respect?
The IRS and State Dept come to mind. The military is on thin ice, with that letter signed by West Point Grads, and the Joint Chiefs groveling to BLM. Thats just 20 seconds of thought.
WestVirginiaRebel: "Judges seem to think they have more authority than the executive branch instead of equal."
Judges seem to think they have more authority than the Trump and other republican executive branches instead of equal.
FIFY
Robert's state goal has always been to make "the Roberts Court" the most apolitical SCOTUS ever. In his rush, he has ruled only on political grounds. Thomas, correctly identified this and called it out.
I think this week has been AWESOME! I hope President Trump takes advantage of his new powers and institutes a number of new "Programs" by executive order. Someone should ask Biden if he will abide by the current Roberts "settled law" that no EO can be overturned by the next president. Programs include 1) The National Firearms Deferred Carry Program - establishes a universal right to carry a gun and makes all citizens immune from state and local gun laws; 2) The DACA Finance Act - maintins all the provisions of DACA but adds a $1 million annual fee to enter the program (billed to the DNC); 3) The Deferred Abortion Childrens Act - establishes a program where all abortions are deferred for 2 years after impregnation. I could come up with a million of them!
"We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges," Roberts said in a statement. "What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them."
"That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for."
PRESIDENT ROBERTS OF THE LIBERAL BLOCK ASKS YOU BELIEVE HIM OVER YOUR OWN EYES
The IRS and State Dept come to mind
The coup against Trump was executed out of the State Dept. That's why you never hear their name come up.
It's too bad that the court didn't apply that same logic to Roe rather than taking it out of the hands of legislators.
- Krumhorn
If Flynn case makes to USSC -
this should provide rescue rationale for the appeals court hearing J Sullivan who is refusing to end something also
The Deferred Abortion Childrens Act
DACA. You can reuse, reduce, and recycle the law, but not the child. Go green!
They are just giving up on pretense at this point.
The only remedy for this is a culling.
Thankfully we didn't allow W to nominate Harriet Miers. HaHa
I've now lost respect for the FBI, NSA, CIA and the courts. Are there any other govt bureaucracies left that I should respect?
Department of Agriculture. That's about it. Not the Bureau of Indian Affairs (I worked with them back in the day -- we're lucky we have any living Native Americans at all). Not the Department of the Interior. Certainly not State. HUD has always been a disaster. Even with DeVos at the top, Education is a mess. CDC screwed up coronavirus from start to finish. Nope. Agriculture and that's it.
Birkel: The Left's actions, even if extralegal, are carved in stone. Any action the Right takes to counter or retard the Left's, even when Constitutional, is nullified. Ever Leftward. Kinda like that.
I WON'T VOTE FOR ROBERTS AS SUPREME LEADER NEXT ELECTION
Roberts on gender and obmacare
- I can cook up a way to get what I think is popular out of a law - we must preserve what Congress really meant at all costs
Roberts on illegals
- I'll be the judge of what orders a President MUST continue
The media will love him know that he is woke.
Goresuch was a dope. The process comes first, while the lib block the end justifies the means.
What has the left on Roberts? I assume it concerns his children and their adoption.
Looks to me like a Pyrrhic victory for the left.
1 )The argument on animus was completely shot down by the court.
2 ) It was conceded that DHS has the legal authority to terminate DACA.
3) The decision rests on the inadequacy of the Duke memo. The majority spent a lot of effort making sure that the Nielsen memo was excluded from consideration. If that memo also violated the APA, the surely the decision would have rested on its inadequacies. But it does not. Thus it seems to me that the Nielsen memo may be a valid basis for the action of the DHS.
This means that if the administration just reissues the order, following all the APA requirements, based on the content of the Nielsen memo, the courts should have a hard time rejecting the action. I am not sure given the findings of the court what basis a biases district court could use that would not be overturned immediately on appeal.
The question then is a tactical one for the Whitehouse: when to reissue the cancellation of the program. One interesting choice would be to issue the cancellation so that it went into effect, say in December. And also have the Congressional Republicans issue a legislative replacement for DACA. Then the argument to the Latino community would be, you need to vote in Republicans so that they can pass the replacement because otherwise DACA will die before the Democrates have a chance to address it. Or at least force the Democrates to come up with a plan to counter this option.
There are two dangers in this decision:
1) The court accepted the concept of animus and a valid argument. They may have limited it a bit, but it is still a politically dangerous principle. It allows the argument that a policy is invalid because those who passed it do not like someone. This delves directly into the nature of politics.
2) The court has opened to door for administrations to implement unconstitutional actions that cannot be reversed without going through APA and the complexity that that involves. This is on the road to dictatorship.
Forgive me if I missed something in this case, but why didn't the DHS Secretary instead file a dec action asking for an order declaring that the previous administration's EO was unlawful, and therefore unenforceable? Wouldn't that have avoided the APA issues? Political considerations aside, isn't such an action permissible still?
Trump's going to need that new list of potential justices....
"I think this week has been AWESOME! I hope President Trump takes advantage of his new powers and institutes a number of new "Programs" by executive order." - Jelani
Well played, sir, very well played.
another possible read on this decision ... ??
Trump wants D's to come to the table on DACA.
D's are resisting because holding these kids hostage is political treasure to them.
MikeR said...
I wonder, though, if this is good for Trump's re-election. After all, maybe some liberals who were freaked out by the conservative Court will relax and not bother to vote. I don't see why conservatives would not bother. A more liberal Court would be a whole lot worse.
I'll tell you why this conservative may not bother. I've never voted Democrat in my life, but I didn't vote for Trump in 2016. I don't like his egomania, and I lived in California, where a vote for him wouldn’t have mattered anyway. Now I live in Georgia, and up until a week ago, I was convinced that I would vote for him this time. The Swamp has risen against him. He had the economy roaring until COVID. And he appointed good justices.
Now, I'm just ready to admit defeat. Conservatives lost academia long ago. They never had a foothold in the MSM. Corporations are now cowed into being leftist whether they want to be or not. SCOTUS, imperfect as it is, was the thin ray of hope.
We now have a Chief Justice who's just as liberal as the 4 who *always* vote as a bloc on any social or political issues. Can we retire the phrasing "Chief Justice Roberts joined the 4 liberal judges"? He's one of them. End of story. Gorsuch isn't much better. For some reason, conservatives and liberals both keep fighting hammer and tongs over these judges that end up being liberals in the end anyway.
Double standards in media, academia, and corporate America against conservatives were bad enough. But now SCOTUS itself, supposedly the last bastion of defending the Constitution, has clearly thrown in the towel and is just biased against Republicans, too. SCOTUS is *part of the swamp.* (This is true even if somehow the vestiges of Catholic guilt induce them to side with the Little Sisters of the Poor.)
So why should I care who's in the Oval Office? It's over. Conservatism is routed. Originalism is dead. There's no point to fighting anymore. The only funny thing about this is that just when the liberals should be exulting that they now control *everything*, they are burning down our cities and trying to start a revolution that might be their only chance of defeat.
EO's need to be seen through prism of mockery for rule of law via legislation
and this USSC seems to be inviting Trump to carry on the tradition
Milo Minderbinder said...
"I think this week has been AWESOME! I hope President Trump takes advantage of his new powers and institutes a number of new "Programs" by executive order." - Jelani
Well played, sir, very well played.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा