Court orders full restoration of DACA program

[Kal'Stang]

This is the Obama executive order in the DAPA immigration case I presented in scrolling. The federal judge in Texas ruled in 2015 the OB executive order on DAPA had violated the Administrative Procedures Act. The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the judge. Scotus declined to hear the Obama appeal. The two judges in the Daca cases ruled Trump violated the APA.



In a decision late Monday, Judge Andrew S. Hanen, of Federal District Court for the Southern District of Texas, in Brownsville, ruled in favor of Texas and 25 other states that had challenged Mr. Obama’s immigration actions. The judge said that the administration’s programs would impose major burdens on states, unleashing illegal immigration and straining state budgets, and that the administration had not followed required procedures for changing federal rules.

Mr. Obama vowed Tuesday to appeal the court ruling and expressed confidence that he would prevail in the legal battle to defend his signature domestic policy achievement. “The law is on our side, and history is on our side,” he declared.

In the meantime, the president urged Republican lawmakers to return to negotiations on a broader overhaul of immigration laws.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/18/us/obama-immigration-policy-halted-by-federal-judge-in-texas.html

As I've said above. This case isn't about the executive orders. It's about the administrative action by the Department of Homeland Security which is subject to the Administrative Procedure Act.

They may be using the APA as a legal jargon cover. But plain fact of the matter is that this judge is sidestepping in order to prevent Trumps EO from revoking Obama's EO. Ordering that the DHS must continue to accept applications shows that. And so does the fact that the judge said the Obama's DACA EO was legal and constitutional. Despite the fact that it had never been ruled on as being constitutional or not. Even though its twin, DAPA, had been and was found to be unconstitutional. So please, lets not pretend that this has nothing to do with Trumps EO.

 

[Anagram]

They may be using the APA as a legal jargon cover. But plain fact of the matter is that this judge is sidestepping in order to prevent Trumps EO from revoking Obama's EO. Ordering that the DHS must continue to accept applications shows that. And so does the fact that the judge said the Obama's DACA EO was legal and constitutional. Despite the fact that it had never been ruled on as being constitutional or not. Even though its twin, DAPA, had been and was found to be unconstitutional. So please, lets not pretend that this has nothing to do with Trumps EO.

Firstly, it doesn't have anything to do with Trump's EO, other than that is what prompted the administrative action by the Department of Homeland Security. That action is absolutely subject to the APA. This means that by the legislative will of Congress through the APA, that action must not be arbitrary and capricious. I don't think any lawyer, conservative, liberal, libertarian, Trump supporter, or Trump hater would argue with that.

I still haven't read the judge's rationale for finding the reasoning behind the action to be arbitrary and capricious, so I'm not going to say whether that's right or wrong. For all I know his reasoning is complete bunk. But I think it's important that we at least frame the issue here correctly.

 

[Redress]

Until Trump, has any court ever stopped a President from revoking another past President's EO? I've yet to find a single case regarding such an instance. I may be an armchair lawyer, but at least I do my homework to the best of my ability. Yeah, I may miss stuff. But i'm fairly confidant that no other case exists that is like this.

For god's sake, read the ****ing ruling before you say anything more stupid. Here, let me help you out and quote from the ruling...

This order does not hold that the rescission of DACA was unlawful. That question is for summary judgment, not motions for a preliminary injunction. Cf Hamilton Watch Co. v. Benrus Watch Co.. 206 F.2d 738, 742 (2d Cir. 1953) ("[A] preliminary injunction ... is, by its very nature, interlocutory, tentative, provisional, ad interim, impermanent, mutable, not fixed or final or conclusive, characterized by its for-the-time-beingness.").

This order does not hold that Defendants may not rescind the DACA program. Even if the court ultimately finds that Defendants' stated rationale for ending the DACA program was legally deficient, the ordinary remedy is for the court to remand the decision to DHS for reconsideration. See Chenerv 1. 318 U.S. at 94-95. On remand, DHS "might later, in the exercise of its lawful discretion, reach the same result for a different reason." FEC v. Akins. 524 U.S. 11, 25 (1998).

Or maybe this quote will help you:

Defendants indisputably can end the DACA program. Nothing in the Constitution or the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq. (the "INA"), requires immigration authorities to grant deferred action or work authorization to individuals without lawful immigration status.

The ruling is not saying a president cannot rescind another president's EO. Saying it does just shows that you have not taken any time at all to discover what is actually in the ruling, and you are just making **** up that sounds good to you.

 

[Redress]

They may be using the APA as a legal jargon cover. But plain fact of the matter is that this judge is sidestepping in order to prevent Trumps EO from revoking Obama's EO. Ordering that the DHS must continue to accept applications shows that. And so does the fact that the judge said the Obama's DACA EO was legal and constitutional. Despite the fact that it had never been ruled on as being constitutional or not. Even though its twin, DAPA, had been and was found to be unconstitutional. So please, lets not pretend that this has nothing to do with Trumps EO.

Yeah man, it is all a conspiracy to keep the president down...:roll:

 

[Tangmo]

They may be using the APA as a legal jargon cover. But plain fact of the matter is that this judge is sidestepping in order to prevent Trumps EO from revoking Obama's EO. Ordering that the DHS must continue to accept applications shows that. And so does the fact that the judge said the Obama's DACA EO was legal and constitutional. Despite the fact that it had never been ruled on as being constitutional or not. Even though its twin, DAPA, had been and was found to be unconstitutional. So please, lets not pretend that this has nothing to do with Trumps EO.

Daca is a policy, it is not a law. So was Dapa a policy and not a law. That is what an EO is, i.e., policy. The policy is founded in enabling law and Constitutional authorization.

No court has found either Dapa or Daca to be unconstitutional. As has been pointed out, the beef of the courts in striking down Obama and now in Trump, is the Administrative Procedures Act of 1945 (as amended). Obama violated APA and Trump now has violated APA. Youse posts are strike three youse are out.

The federal judge in Texas who in 2015 zapped Dapa specifically said in his ruling that he did not consider the Constitutionality of Dapa because it is a policy, not a law. Policy changes must comport with the law, in this instance APA.

 

[Redress]

For those unable to find the court order(google is hard, I know): http://cdn.cnn.com/cnn/2018/images/02/13/orderdaca.pdf

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Until Trump, has any court ever stopped a President from revoking another past President's EO? I've yet to find a single case regarding such an instance. I may be an armchair lawyer, but at least I do my homework to the best of my ability. Yeah, I may miss stuff. But i'm fairly confidant that no other case exists that is like this.

I'm not sure I could either but I seem to remember quite a few G.W. Bush "signing statements" where he as much as stated that he had no intention of following the law or enforcing the law despite the fact that he was signing it, or that he only intended to follow or enforce parts of the law he liked. That isn't the same as "a President from revoking another past President's EO" but it does point to the possibility that an incoming President might or might not choose to adhere fully to an EO from a previous administration, no?

Again, I am being very general here, as I have not really researched DACA anywhere near as well as a few of you here on DP have. So I AM indeed following this discussion with great interest and I am learning a lot from people on both sides of the spectrum.

Thank you.

 

[Oreo]

This judge is ordering this administration to reinstate an Obama executive order?

How does he think he can do that?

Is it wrong for Trump to want the legislature to vote on it?

It was Paul Ryan and other congressional leaders that told Trump not to terminate Obama's DACA plan. They knew that there were Republican house members that would never vote for any immigration bill. That's the issue they're having right now. So either Democrats and Republicans work together to steam roll anti-immigration Republicans & Trump--or they go down with it.

House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and other Republican leaders in Congress on Friday urged President Trump not to terminate an Obama-era program that has allowed nearly 800,000 undocumented immigrants to live and work in the country without fear of deportation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ut-are-short-on-votes/?utm_term=.3b65c6d3f965

The issue for the Republican party is: That the DACA plan is favored by more than 80% of Americans in this country, and if Trump hasn't done enough damage to the Republican party already, all they need to see blasted on major news networks all across this country is kids being yanked out of college campus's, high schools, jobs they're working in and being separated from their families and from a country that they have grown up in and were educated in. That should do it for the Republican party once and for all.

Next month is the deadline for DACA, and it doesn't appear that Republicans are making any headway with it. So you had better hope that this Judge's order reinstates Obama's DACA order--before ICE heads out.

Fox News Poll: 83 percent support pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants
Fox News Poll: 83 percent support pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants | Fox News

 

[apdst]

So to recap, you do not know what the judge said in his ruling, nor do you know the applicable laws. Thank you for sharing that.

Do you get tired of being wrong?

 

[apdst]

There seems to be some confusion as to what's actually at issue in this case. It's not about either Trump nor Obama's executive order. It's about Trump's Homeland Security Department's Memorandum (by Acting Secretary Duke) implementing a wind down of the DACA program instituted by Obama's Homeland Security Department in 2012 (by Janet Napolitano). A president has the authority to make or rescind Executive Orders at will, but administrative rules have to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act.

Duke's memorandum is probably a rule. It categorically requires the Department to reject deferred action requests after a certain date, and decisions rescinding rules have to go through notice-and-comment procedure anyway. Rules need to go through notice-and-comment procedure. Duke's memorandum did not. The reasons given by any agency when making a rule also need to meet an "arbitrary and capricious" standard. Unlike rescinding/issuing executive orders, they are legislatively subject to judicial review under the APA and may not be done for any reason.

Now there is a wrinkle here in that Napolitano's memo didn't go through notice-and-comment. But while this hasn't gone to the SCOTUS, there is a D.C. circuit opinion that rescinding a rule that was defectively promulgated also must go through notice-and-comment. Two wrongs don't make a right. I imagine that Duke's memo could lose on this case if challenged.

I understand the judge here found that the plaintiff's in this case will also likely win because the reasons given by the agency amounted to "arbitrary and capricious" but I haven't read the order yet, so I won't comment on whether that was a good decision or not.

The judge overstepped his powers...period.

1. A judge can't order an EO to be reinstated.

2. A judge can't order a non-existant law to be enforced (there's no Dream Act, hence no "Dreamers").

3. A judge can't order the Executive Branch to naturalize foreigners.

Spin it how y'all please, but those are facts.

 

[apdst]

For god's sake, read the ****ing ruling before you say anything more stupid. Here, let me help you out and quote from the ruling...



Or maybe this quote will help you:



The ruling is not saying a president cannot rescind another president's EO. Saying it does just shows that you have not taken any time at all to discover what is actually in the ruling, and you are just making **** up that sounds good to you.

DACA isn't lawful. A judge can't order the enforcement of an unlawful EO.

 

[Redress]

DACA isn't lawful. A judge can't order the enforcement of an unlawful EO.

So you still have not read the order, nor know anything about its content.

 

[apdst]

So you still have not read the order, nor know anything about its content.

I don't need to.

1. DACA is unlawful.

2. A judge can't order it to be reinstated.

Period.

 

[Redress]

I don't need to.

1. DACA is unlawful.

2. A judge can't order it to be reinstated.

Period.

Yeah man, learning what you are talking about is not important...

 

[apdst]

Yeah man, learning what you are talking about is not important...

You're proving that. :lamo

 

[Fletch]

Yeah man, learning what you are talking about is not important...

Explain it then.

 

[BreadConqueror]

Another Federal judge that hasn't read The Constitution. How the hell do these clowns make it out of law school, much less onto the bench. This is a classic example of why Federal judges should have term limits.

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/feb/13/court-orders-full-restoration-daca-program/

Where did you go to law school?

 

[Anagram]

The judge overstepped his powers...period.

1. A judge can't order an EO to be reinstated.

A judge didn't. He ordered that the Department of Homeland Security's action could not go into effect because it didn't comply with the APA as all agency actions must. His order had nothing to do with EO's.

2. A judge can't order a non-existant law to be enforced (there's no Dream Act, hence no "Dreamers").

Didn't. Again, he ruled that the action by the agency didn't comply with the APA. He in fact ruled that a judge can't require the DHS to defer action on anyone.

3. A judge can't order the Executive Branch to naturalize foreigners.

A judge didn't. His order specifically said he wasn't ordering that any individual foreigners be accepted into the program.

Spin it how y'all please, but those are facts.

Perhaps. But none of what you mentioned is relevant to the case.

 

[Redress]

Explain it then.

I did better, I linked the ruling and provided actual quotes from it.

 

[apdst]

A judge didn't. He ordered that the Department of Homeland Security's action could not go into effect because it didn't comply with the APA as all agency actions must. His order had nothing to do with EO's.



Didn't. Again, he ruled that the action by the agency didn't comply with the APA. He in fact ruled that a judge can't require the DHS to defer action on anyone.



A judge didn't. His order specifically said he wasn't ordering that any individual foreigners be accepted into the program.



Perhaps. But none of what you mentioned is relevant to the case.

DACA was never lawful. The government doesn't have to give notice that it's suspended. The APA doesn't apply.

A judge can order an unlawful program fully restored? Bull****.

 

[poweRob]

Just so we all aren't being led by the nose by the Washington Times... let's add what the judge actually said..

"Defendants indisputably can end the DACA program," Garaufis wrote, referring to the Trump administration. "The question before the court is thus not whether defendants could end the DACA program, but whether they offered legally adequate reasons for doing so. Based on its review of the record before it, the court concludes that defendants have not done so."

The judge said that the decision to end the program was based in part on the "plainly incorrect factual premise" that the program was illegal.​

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/13/politics/federal-judge-daca/index.html

 

[ludin]

Announcing and end to the program - with no freaking clue what to do next, is why clueless, ego maniacal people like Trump shouldn't be allowed anywhere near Washington DC.

Thank goodness for Federal Judges with enough backbone to do their jobs still exisit. It is obvious that the "spineless" Republicans in Congress don't have enough backbone to stand up for American values and oppose the Trump dictatorial agenda.

you once again have no clue what your talking about.

the judge nufflied his own ruling.
He said that trump has the power to resend it.

His stupidity comes when he said that he needed a reason.

He doesn't need a reason. he is reasoning is simple. he has the constitutional power to rescind and OE from a previous president.
that is all the reasoning he needs.

The fact is DACA should have gone to congress and congress pass a bill.
Obama once again over stepped his authority as president.
he isn't doing his job.
if he was doing his job he would have thrown the challenge out of court as the plaintiffs don't have standing to challenge it.

 

[Zyphlin]

1. A judge can't order an EO to be reinstated.

They didn't

2. A judge can't order a non-existant law to be enforced (there's no Dream Act, hence no "Dreamers").

They didn't

3. A judge can't order the Executive Branch to naturalize foreigners.

They didn't.

I don't disagree with any of those three quotes you said. Thankfully, none of those three things happened.

 

[Anagram]

DACA was never lawful. The government doesn't have to give notice that it's suspended. The APA doesn't apply.

Even assuming DACA is unlawful, this just isn't true. All agency action is subject to the APA, and with limited exceptions that don't apply here, is subject to judicial review.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Another Federal judge that hasn't read The Constitution. How the hell do these clowns make it out of law school, much less onto the bench. This is a classic example of why Federal judges should have term limits.

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/feb/13/court-orders-full-restoration-daca-program/

The court system is as messed up as the rest of the government. Whatever powers a local jurisdiction wants to give its judges is one thing, but for a district judge to presume to make law for the Congress, the President, the entire country? That is a power the Constitution never intended the court at any level, including the SCOTUS, to have. And it is an extremely dangerous thing if it is allowed to stand.

The Constitution gives the power to make law to the people's elected representatives in Congress and ONLY to the people's representatives in Congress.