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

[Rogue Valley]

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

April 25, 2018

A federal judge has ruled against the Trump administration's decision to end deportation protections for some young immigrants, saying the White House was "arbitrary and capricious" in moving to end the Obama-era DACA program. In a blow to President Trump, who has long railed against the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, U.S. District Judge John D. Bates for the District of Columbia said the Department of Homeland Security had failed to provide an adequate rationale for why the program is unlawful. He said that the decision to rescind DACA must therefore be set aside, but he gave Homeland Security 90 days to "better explain its view" that DACA is illegal. "Each day that the agency delays is a day that aliens who might otherwise be eligible for initial grants of DACA benefits are exposed to removal because of an unlawful agency action," Bates wrote in his decision. The government is expected to appeal the decision, but in January, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up a key case dealing with DACA, leaving the administration few options.

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

 

[gdgyva]

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

this is getting ridiculous

judges are MAKING laws now....not ruling on them

if our country wants DACA as a law, we need to pass it as legislation...not a damn EO

and if one president can enact the EO, another one sure in the hell should be able to stop it

And it shouldnt matter if it is a D or an R in the WH....these EO's are not the way to run the country

 

[Kal'Stang]

DACA is illegal because it goes against current law as written by Congress and signed by previous Presidents. Presidents do not make law. Only Congress has that ability. That any judge would determine otherwise is nothing more than judicial activism. And I rarely use that term.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Hmm... if a prior POTUS makes an EO or administrative policy (not a law passed by congress) that a judge also likes then no future POTUS can undo that EO or administrative policy. The fact that DACA/DAPA was never passed by congress as immigration law is ample justification for the current POTUS to end or amend it.

 

[ludin]

Judges have gained to much power in this country and this guy should know better.
He has no power to do this.

Getting rid of DACA is within the scope and power of the president.

He can resend any EO he wants.
It doesn't matter the reason and the judge has no ability to say he can't do it.
He is overstepping his authority.

Yet another judges that needs to be removed from the bench.

Judges do not have the power to make law and DACA is not a LAW.

this statemetn by the judge shows he has no friggen clue what he is talking about.

Department of Homeland Security had failed to provide an adequate rationale for why the program is unlawful

they don't need an adequate rationale. DACA is not a law to being with. It was an illegal EO signed by obama
trump has the constitutional power to undo it any time he wants.

all of these courts will be overturned by the SCOTUS.
and they should all be embarrassed.

 

[notquiteright]

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.

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.

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.

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????

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

 

[Felis Leo]

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.

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.

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.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it mandate . Lives ALWAYS hang in the balance in relation to the exercise of Federal power.

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????

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

I must ask: Do you believe DACA, which was a suspension of the enforcement of Federal Law passed by Congress as to certain groups of people, was a proper exercise of executive power? I realize that you may like the results on the basis of your political ideology, but in principle, do you think it is proper for a President to order the enforcement of Federal Laws suspended? Or just Federal Laws that you do not like?

 

[trouble13]

I must ask: Do you believe DACA, which was a suspension of the enforcement of Federal Law passed by Congress as to certain groups of people, was a proper exercise of executive power? I realize that you may like the results on the basis of your political ideology, but in principle, do you think it is proper for a President to order the enforcement of Federal Laws suspended? Or just Federal Laws that you do not like?

I wonder what their opinion would be if Trump signed an EO that suspended background checks for gun purchases?

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

I wonder what their opinion would be if Trump signed an EO that suspended background checks for gun purchases?

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

Well if the president is going to make the laws let's get rid of congress and save some money. We won't need a judicial system just a president with the power of a king.

 

[Barnacle]

It looks to me like the lawyers at the DOJ omitted things on purpose, which leads me to believe the "never-Trump" is deeply embedded in our justice department.

Josh Blackman
‏
Verified account

@JoshMBlackman
Follow Follow @JoshMBlackman
More
"Judge Bates noted Mr. Blackman’s stance in his ruling, but pointedly said the government failed to raise that defense, and it wasn’t his place to make those arguments for the government." https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/apr/24/daca-restart-ordered-federal-judge/ … #DACA

 

[Middle_Ground]

I must ask: Do you believe DACA, which was a suspension of the enforcement of Federal Law passed by Congress as to certain groups of people, was a proper exercise of executive power? I realize that you may like the results on the basis of your political ideology, but in principle, do you think it is proper for a President to order the enforcement of Federal Laws suspended? Or just Federal Laws that you do not like?

I think a president has a right to do suspend any federal law. I guess I've been listening to republicans to much in the last year the president is the chief law enforcement officer. He has ultimate control over the justice department and the miltary he can fire bombs anywhere he wants, sign eo's to ban, stop or start any law he wants. Isn't that what republicans have been saying for the last 15 months or So?
Why is daca any different?

 

[Felis Leo]

I think a president has a right to do suspend any federal law. I guess I've been listening to republicans to much in the last year the president is the chief law enforcement officer. He has ultimate control over the justice department and the miltary he can fire bombs anywhere he wants, sign eo's to ban, stop or start any law he wants. Isn't that what republicans have been saying for the last 15 months or So?
Why is daca any different?

Yes. He is the chief law enforcement officer. The President already has the power of the Veto. So why should he have ever been given that power if he can simply order the enforcement of any law passed by Congress suspended? If a future President says that he does not wish to enforce the Civil Rights Act and issues an executive order to that effect, I think many people who applaud Obama's DACA executive order would quickly realize the full import of giving the President the power to suspend laws. I am against the President unilaterally suspending any law passed by Congress that is still in effect when he does not wish to follow that law. I think it goes against the rule of law, and is a perversion of the duties of the President who is sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

 

[Barnacle]

I think a president has a right to do suspend any federal law. I guess I've been listening to republicans to much in the last year the president is the chief law enforcement officer. He has ultimate control over the justice department and the miltary he can fire bombs anywhere he wants, sign eo's to ban, stop or start any law he wants. Isn't that what republicans have been saying for the last 15 months or So?
Why is daca any different?

The judge has given the DOJ lawyers a "roadmap" on how to eliminate DACA - see post #10. If the DOJ lawyers don't follow that, there isn't much the judge can do.
The judge just wants to follow the law ...

 

[Mr Person]

I wonder what their opinion would be if Trump signed an EO that suspended background checks for gun purchases?

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

this is getting ridiculous

judges are MAKING laws now....not ruling on them

if our country wants DACA as a law, we need to pass it as legislation...not a damn EO

and if one president can enact the EO, another one sure in the hell should be able to stop it

And it shouldnt matter if it is a D or an R in the WH....these EO's are not the way to run the country

DACA is illegal because it goes against current law as written by Congress and signed by previous Presidents. Presidents do not make law. Only Congress has that ability. That any judge would determine otherwise is nothing more than judicial activism. And I rarely use that term.

Hmm... if a prior POTUS makes an EO or administrative policy (not a law passed by congress) that a judge also likes then no future POTUS can undo that EO or administrative policy. The fact that DACA/DAPA was never passed by congress as immigration law is ample justification for the current POTUS to end or amend it.

Judges have gained to much power in this country and this guy should know better.
He has no power to do this.

It looks to me like the lawyers at the DOJ omitted things on purpose, which leads me to believe the "never-Trump" is deeply embedded in our justice department.

Why do people do what you lot are doing?

You clearly didn't even read the ruling, nor did you read the other rulings on the same question. You also clealry don't have the legal training or experience necessary to make a judgment. Yet here you all are, playing expert, spouting off meaningless nonsense about making laws, judicial activism, and presidential orders.




Here is what is going on, which not one of you bothered to figure out: Long long ago, congress did pass a law, the APA. That's the Administrative Procedure Act. The APA sets down procedures that administrative agencies have to follow when engaging in rulemaking and other activities.

DHS is an administrative agency. The heart of this and the other rulings is a finding that DHS violated the APA in the manner it went about rescinding the memorandum that actually authorized DACA. You may not realize this, but Obama EO did not actually implement it and Trumps EO did not actually rescind it. The DHS memo is what is key.

And because the APA is a law passed by congress governing administrative agencies, your complaints can only come from one of two sources: (1) ignorance about the APA, the lawsuit, and the ruling, or (2) dishonest partisan hackery. The latter would be particularly troubling, especially in light of the fact that I've seen some of you accuse other people of the very same thing.



Again, the APA is a law passed by congress. You like those! DHS is an administrative agency. DHS is governed by the law passed by congress, so it has to comply with it. These suits are about its failure to do so when it rescinded the memo that actually enacted DACA (Obama's EO didn't actually do that), the rulings agree that it did. That doesn't mean DHS cannot rescind the memo. It means they have to follow the APA in doing so.

So STOP repeating this false crap. Just stop.



Edit: see also post 16.

 

[notquiteright]

I must ask: Do you believe DACA, which was a suspension of the enforcement of Federal Law passed by Congress as to certain groups of people, was a proper exercise of executive power? I realize that you may like the results on the basis of your political ideology, but in principle, do you think it is proper for a President to order the enforcement of Federal Laws suspended? Or just Federal Laws that you do not like?

Your obvious political bias colors your framing of the question.... :roll:

The issue is do we hold minors to the same standards and subject them to the same legal prosecution as an adult???

Our legal system has a myriad of examples of deference to minors who are judged to not have the same ability to control their lives as adults.

Far from suspending the enforcement, it is making allowances for the age of the person at the time of crossing the border and the history of that person while growing up in this country.

Now answer my question... if EO are not actual laws because Congress didn't pass them are you in favor of ended ALL EOs to include Trumps??? Or just the ones you don't like... eace

 

[Mr Person]

The articles in the OP link to the decision: https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2017cv1907-23

It literally says on the very first page: These cases present an array of administrative and constitutional challenges to the Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) rescission of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”) program. Though the government disputes these challenges on the merits, its primary defenses concern the Court’s authority to hear the cases: the government contends that most plaintiffs lack standing, that the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) deprives the Court of subject-matter jurisdiction, and that the Department’s decision to rescind DACA is not subject to review under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) because it was committed to agency discretion by law. The government has moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, and plaintiffs have moved for summary judgment only on their APA claims.


That's what the fight is about. The plaintiffs say the APA governs DHS on this (they're right). The government tries to throw the kitchen sink at it.


The court wasn't having it:

For the reasons that follow, the Court concludes that it has both jurisdiction and statutory authority to hear plaintiffs’ APA and constitutional claims. The Court further concludes that, under the APA, DACA’s rescission was arbitrary and capricious because the Department failed adequately to explain its conclusion that the program was unlawful. Neither the meager legal reasoning nor the assessment of litigation risk provided by DHS to support its rescission decision is sufficient to sustain termination of the DACA program. Thus, plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment will be granted in part, and the decision to rescind DACA will be vacated and remanded to DHS. Vacatur of DACA’s rescission will mean that DHS must accept and process new as well as renewal DACA applications. The Court will stay its order of vacatur for ninety days, however, to allow the agency an opportunity to better explain its rescission decision.

 

[trouble13]

Why do people do what you lot are doing?

You clearly didn't even read the ruling, nor did you read the other rulings on the same question. You also clealry don't have the legal training or experience necessary to make a judgment. Yet here you all are, playing expert, spouting off meaningless nonsense about making laws and presidential orders.




Here is what is going on, which not one of you bothered to figure out: Long long ago, congress did pass a law, the APA. That's the Administrative Procedure Act. The APA sets down procedures that administrative agencies have to follow when engaging in rulemaking and other activities.

DHS is an administrative agency. The heart of this and the other rulings is a finding that DHS violated the APA in the manner it went about rescinding the memorandum that actually authorized DACA. You may not realize this, but Obama EO did not actually implement it and Trumps EO did not actually rescind it. The DHS memo is what is key.

And because the APA is a law passed by congress governing administrative agencies, your complaints can only come from one of two sources: (1) ignorance about the APA, the lawsuit, and the ruling, or (2) dishonest partisan hackery. The latter would be particularly troubling, especially in light of the fact that I've seen some of accuse other people of the very same thing.



Again, the APA is a law passed by congress. You like those! DHS is an administrative agency. DHS is governed by the law passed by congress, so it has to comply with it. These suits are about its failure to do so when it rescinded the memo that actually enacted DACA (Obama's EO didn't actually do that), the rulings agree that it did. That doesn't mean DHS cannot rescind the memo. It means they have to follow the APA in doing so.

So STOP repeating this false crap. Just stop.



Edit: see also post 16.

So your saying the argument is a procedural one?

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

 

[Lovebug]

DACA is illegal because it goes against current law as written by Congress and signed by previous Presidents. Presidents do not make law. Only Congress has that ability. That any judge would determine otherwise is nothing more than judicial activism. And I rarely use that term.

That may be why SCOTUS isn't taking up the case.

 

[Mr Person]

So your saying the argument is a procedural one?

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

First, this isn't an "argument". It's a court's actual ruling.

Second, when you say a court ruling is a procedural one, it usually means an assertion that the ruling is based on judicial procedures. This isn't.

Third, what the ruling is about is whether or not the DHS complied with the APA when it rescinded the memo authorizing DACA. I quoted from the ruling in post 16. The judge is vacating DHS's decision to rescind the memo implementing DACA because it didn't comply with the APA when it did so, but then kicking the decision on the memo back to DHS, where DHS can rescind it again - just so long as it complies with the APA's requirements on that point.

The judge is also granting a 90 day stay before that ruling kicks in so that the government can have another chance at explaining its rationale for rescinding its memo.




But again, there's no court here saying that DHS simply cannot ever get rid of DACA on the merits. It's just about whether things were done in the way the APA requires. The APA was put in place to restrain administrative agencies.

 

[Mr Person]

DACA is illegal because it goes against current law as written by Congress and signed by previous Presidents. Presidents do not make law. Only Congress has that ability. That any judge would determine otherwise is nothing more than judicial activism. And I rarely use that term.

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.

 

[chuckiechan]

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

This judge is making it up as he goes along. He ruled that Obamas E.O. Is binding on Trump. If this is the case, an E.O.has become a substitute for Congress. If that is the case, who needs Congress?

 

[ludin]

Why do people do what you lot are doing?

You clearly didn't even read the ruling, nor did you read the other rulings on the same question. You also clealry don't have the legal training or experience necessary to make a judgment. Yet here you all are, playing expert, spouting off meaningless nonsense about making laws, judicial activism, and presidential orders.f

Does the president have the ability to rescind EO's yes or no?
pretty simple.

The policy change from homeland security came from the rescinded EO. By reascending the EO that gave homeland security the authority to change policy.

Here is what is going on, which not one of you bothered to figure out: Long long ago, congress did pass a law, the APA. That's the Administrative Procedure Act. The APA sets down procedures that administrative agencies have to follow when engaging in rulemaking and other activities.

DHS is an administrative agency. The heart of this and the other rulings is a finding that DHS violated the APA in the manner it went about rescinding the memorandum that actually authorized DACA. You may not realize this, but Obama EO did not actually implement it and Trumps EO did not actually rescind it. The DHS memo is what is key.

The DHS memo stems from the OBama EO. without that EO there is nothing that homeland security could do. They do not have the power to change or make law.

And because the APA is a law passed by congress governing administrative agencies, your complaints can only come from one of two sources: (1) ignorance about the APA, the lawsuit, and the ruling, or (2) dishonest partisan hackery. The latter would be particularly troubling, especially in light of the fact that I've seen some of you accuse other people of the very same thing.

The APA has little to do with this the root of the issue is Obama signed an EO. That gave authority to HLS to change policy. HLS cannot change or make law on their own.
the memo they issued was a direct result of the EO that obama issued which was unconstitutional to begin with as the president doesn't have the power to change law either
That power solely resides with congress.
Trump undid the EO. by getting rid of the EO it rescinded any authority for the previous memo. it basically made it invalid. Therefore the policy can be changed.
Trump can rescind any EO he wants without reason.

Again, the APA is a law passed by congress. You like those! DHS is an administrative agency. DHS is governed by the law passed by congress, so it has to comply with it. These suits are about its failure to do so when it rescinded the memo that actually enacted DACA (Obama's EO didn't actually do that), the rulings agree that it did. That doesn't mean DHS cannot rescind the memo. It means they have to follow the APA in doing so.

So STOP repeating this false crap. Just stop.

Learn about the separation powers. The previous memo only had the power that the obama EO gave it.
by rescinding the EO that memo is no longer valid. neither obama nor the HLS has the power to change or make law.

they are in fact in violation of the separation of powers.
so please stop yourself.

 

[Sampson Simpson]

this is getting ridiculous

judges are MAKING laws now....not ruling on them

if our country wants DACA as a law, we need to pass it as legislation...not a damn EO

and if one president can enact the EO, another one sure in the hell should be able to stop it

And it shouldnt matter if it is a D or an R in the WH....these EO's are not the way to run the country

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.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

this is getting ridiculous

judges are MAKING laws now....not ruling on them

if our country wants DACA as a law, we need to pass it as legislation...not a damn EO

and if one president can enact the EO, another one sure in the hell should be able to stop it

And it shouldnt matter if it is a D or an R in the WH....these EO's are not the way to run the country

I agree with you. GWB used "signing statements", Obama and Trump are partial to EO's. They mostly do it because either congress doesn't do anything, or in the GWB case, he didn't like what congress did and decided he could redefine what it meant.

We need to throw the extremists out of the government - left and right.

 

[Zyphlin]

From my take on the last thread like this...

It's my understanding that essentially the problem is an administrative one. Essentially, the given reason for ending it...that it was unlawfully in place...is essentially not a justifiable claim for the EXECUTIVE branch to make and use as the basis for taking action. That doesn't mean that DACA cannot be removed via EO, but rather that it would simply need to be rescinded for a reason that actually is within the general purview of the executive branch to declare.