Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

4th Circuit Rules Against Trump Administration’s Plans to Cancel Controversial DACA Program

4th Circuit Rules Against Trump Administration’s Plans to Cancel Controversial DACA Program

Extra-legal Obama-era program being protected by courts

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LypcnDZs0DA

Virginia-based 4th Circuit of Appeals ruled against the Trump Administration’s attempt to roll back the controversial and extra-legal Obama-era program, DACA. The ruling is based on the court’s claim that the administration didn’t sufficiently outline its decision to end DACA.

US News & World Report has more:

The 2-1 decision reversed a lower court’s ruling and is in line with a decision from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on a similar case. The government appealed the 9th Circuit ruling to the Supreme Court last fall, but the court has not thus far said it would review the case.

The lawsuit before the 4th Circuit centered on a claim that the decision to end DACA needed to follow the Administrative Procedure Act, which outlines how federal agencies can propose and adopt regulations, and that it did not do so. The government argued that the decision to terminate the program was an agency decision and not subject to the rules of the act.

The court found that the administration did not properly explain its decision to end the program and was, therefore, in violation of the act. The court also found that homeland security officials did not “adequately account for the reliance interests that would be affected by its decision.”

The government was not, however, obligated to allow for notice and comment on the policy decision, the court found. It also said that homeland security was not obligated to adhere to a policy preventing the sharing of DACA applicants’ information for immigration enforcement purposes.

Ruling here:

4th Circuit DACA Ruling by Legal Insurrection on Scribd

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

So is the solution just to go through the standard process again, withdraw the reasoning the Obama’s administration used to grant itself those powers and remove DACA by that process?

    What do you mean, “again”? Did a single person claim that the Obama administration went through the standard process to institute DACA? Even one?

    That said, the stance seems to be, even a rule established through a complete mockery of federal procedure can only be undone through standard federal procedure, no shortcuts allowed, not even if a policy is unconstitutional or illegal, because, well, we said so.

    LibraryGryffon in reply to Voyager. | May 17, 2019 at 4:37 pm

    I’m starting to think that tar and feathers, pitchforks, and torches might just be called for.

Or maybe just tell Obama’s judges to ho fuck themselves.

    n.n in reply to mailman. | May 17, 2019 at 3:49 pm

    They may enjoy that activity. They could go plan themselves; but, under the circumstances, that’s probably an extreme request.

I would still like to know why the esteemed Robert Mueller Esq. has not been held to account over the Whitey Bulger fiasco. The legal guild has much to answer for.

How is it Federal courts ruling on a memo…. not even a EO? This was a policy memo from ” I Won “, and somehow it has greater resiliency and protection from the judicial branch than law passed by Congress. Huh. What a joke.

4th armored div | May 17, 2019 at 3:57 pm

ignore the ruling until SCOTUS decides to decide.

let the libs justify THEMSELVES……

    JusticeDelivered in reply to 4th armored div. | May 17, 2019 at 4:37 pm

    That was my first thought when I saw this, move rapidly to deport these people, and if SCOTUS rule s to support the decision, unlikely, then allow those deported to ever so slowly come back 🙂

    Maybe we should start deporting illegals to very cold places?

    TX-rifraph in reply to 4th armored div. | May 17, 2019 at 4:40 pm

    Agree. This is the PG version of mailman’s earlier comment with the same underlying meaning.

And some people still think we have a Constitutional Republic that exists under the rule of law !

healthguyfsu | May 17, 2019 at 4:52 pm

Seems like the challenge is to sue on the merits of DACA itself. They’ve created precedent now that going through those channels must be used for the action to have legal merit. In essence, they’ve weakened Obama’s DACA act.

Obviously Trumps legal team knew this would happen
So what’s plan B?

    SDN in reply to gonzotx. | May 18, 2019 at 9:35 am

    Trump is trying to get this thing to SCOTUS. I suspect that his reason for not just ignoring it is that even our “conservative” Justices will react to a threat to SCOTUS’ power.

The entirety of these Courts’ jurisprudential underpinnings for their decisions, here, seems to consist of a simple, non-legal premise, to wit: “Any edict issued by the sainted Obama — no matter how lawless, imperially arrogant and utterly devoid of legitimate Executive authority — shall not be contravened by Trump.”

This is the worst type of hype-partisan, judicial totalitarianism. Obama can enact DACA with a snap of his fingers, but, Trump can’t repeal it, without jumping who an endless array of contrived judicially-imposed hoops? It’s Kafkaesque absurdity.

    MarkS in reply to guyjones. | May 17, 2019 at 10:13 pm

    You nailed it! The issue is the court denying a president the ability to rescind an executive order of a predecessor.

      guyjones in reply to MarkS. | May 17, 2019 at 10:21 pm

      Well, apparently, according to our allegedly sagacious and enlightened federal judges, any act promulgated by St. Obama — no matter how thin the Constitutional/legal reed upon which it rests may be — must be considered unassailable Holy Writ by his successors. This is farcical and a total disgrace.

While the popular argument has always been that the establishment of the DACA policy was unconstitutional. The Administration never argued this point, so the constitutionality of the policy has never been factored into the court decisions. The reason for this was that the Administration believed that as the policy was a deferment of action policy, it was unreviewable by the courts, under the APA. This point is explored at great length in Judge Richardson’s dissent. And, this is the sticking point. The majority, on the court, ruled that the decision not to continue the policy is arbitrary and capricious. However, all that the Trump Administration is doing is not adding any more people under the policy and they are not renewing any deferred action assignments, when they expire. As this is nothing more than exercising the power of prosecutorial discretion, by the administration, which is not judicially reviewable, under the APA, the administration does not have to justify the action.

Now, the 4th Circuit has seeming ruled that DACA is a policy, other than simple prosecutorial discretion. The problem with that is, that in order for the administration to establish a specific policy to defer action legislatively directed by Congress, the administration has to be granted such power by the Congress, except in the case of prosecutorial discretion. If the action taken by the Obama Administration was not prosecutorial discretion, then what Congressional authority allowed it to establish the policy in the first place? If the answer too that is none, which it the case, then the initial action which created the DACA policy was illegal and no justification for its cancellation needs be given. It HAS to be rescinded as continuation of the policy would be, itself, illegal. If it is simply prosecutorial discretion, then the Administration can establish its own policy, in that regard, without having to justify it in any way, especially to the courts.

    guyjones in reply to Mac45. | May 17, 2019 at 10:17 pm

    Nice analysis. What makes the courts’ reasoning so flawed is that the Obama Administration always rationalized DACA by invoking the inapposite and fallacious “prosecutorial discretion” conceit, when, in actuality, it represented a usurpation of Congress’s role in shaping immigration policy through laws. I recall St. Obama threatening that, if Congress didn’t act to his imperial satisfaction, vis-a-vis immigration policy, he would simply use his pen. Which is exactly how a lawless tyrant acts.

      Mac45 in reply to guyjones. | May 17, 2019 at 11:19 pm

      Classifying DACA as prosecutorial discretion was critical to keeping it alive, after the election of DJT. If it was actual immigration policy, which it was [Obama actually told us it was when he announced it], it was policy which Obama had no authority to establish unilaterally, and flew directly in the face of existing federal law. So, it was labelled as prosecutorial discretion.

      This places liberal courts in a precarious position. If it is prosecutorial discretion, then it can be changed by the Trump administration, without coming under the APA. So, the courts have to make the assumption that this is a policy authorized by federal law, in order to use the APA to block the Trump Administration changes to DACA. But, there is NO controlling federal law for this policy. And, without such controlling law, the policy, itself, is illegal. And, that would make it incumbent upon the Trump Administration to end the policy, immediately. To make it even worse, the policy flies directly in the face of existing federal immigration law, unless it is prosecutorial discretion.

      This should have been a simple judicial ruling for any court. It only becomes complicated if it is a POLITICAL ruling.

    artichoke in reply to Mac45. | May 18, 2019 at 1:37 am

    When the leftist judges run out of any sort of reason, they fall back on “arbitrary and capricious” even when the policy makes sense to about 50% of American voters and is extensively documented.

    SCOTUS should just reverse on the basis that the administration was not “arbitrary and capricious”. That should be easy to do and if Justices all have consciences, should get a 9-0 vote.

      Mac45 in reply to artichoke. | May 18, 2019 at 2:08 pm

      No, the SCOTUS should reverse because the policy is prosecutorial discretion and is therefor exempt from the provisions of the APA. This would be the easiest out for the Court.

      Now, the DACA policy, as enacted in the Obama years, confers privileged to DACA registrants beyond simple prosecutorial discretion. None of these privileges are authorized under law. For that reason, the Court should actually declare DACA to be unconstitutional and illegal and order the immediate suspension of the program. If the Trump Administration chooses to enact a policy relating strictly to prosecutorial discretion in the case of immigration maters, that would be within its purview.

Orange Man Bad! Don’t even have to read the court decision to know that’s the excuse, dressed up in whatever language they want. DACA was established by executive order. Which means- DACA can be made to go away by executive order. The Administrative Procedure Act wasn’t used to establish it- there’s no need for the Administrative Procedure Act to disestablish it.

Seeing how a president has no authority to grant SS numbers or green cards can’t Trump invalidate them?

buckeyeminuteman | May 18, 2019 at 6:22 am

Trump needs to stop listening to these ridiculous judges and stop waiting for his decisions to get up to SCOTUS. He doesn’t need some measly federal judge to tell him he can’t do something. Stop looking for their affirmation and rubber stamp. Terminate it and go back to original procedures before DACA. What is the 4th Circuit really going to do? Drive down to Arizona and try to force Border Patrol’s hand? Drive to the White House and place him under arrest?

    As we’ve seen, the Federal bureaucracy is still Obama’s. This decision gives them an excuse to disobey Trump.

    “What’s Trump going to do? Drive down to AZ and enforce it personally?”

    We have no rule of law anymore.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend