Court orders full restoration of DACA program

Court orders full restoration of DACA program

“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,” wrote Judge Garaufis, a Clinton appointee to the court. “Based on its review of the record before it, the court concludes that defendants have not done so.”

I enjoy how Trump's tweets were used against him. LOL.

Like the Muslim ban that definitely wasn't a Muslim ban, except they kept calling it a Muslim ban.

Judge Garaufis is the second federal judge to rule Mr. Trump’s aides bungled the phaseout — but his decision is the most wide-ranging, ordering the government to not only allow those already in the program to renew their applications but also ordering the government to accept new applications.

Nice.

And he said the administration doesn’t have to approve any specific DACA applications. But it must begin to process applications again.

Bah.

And he said the administration doesn’t have to approve any specific DACA applications. But it must begin to process applications again.

This actually is still significant... again, any time Trump denies a DACA applicant, they will have to explain why they are blocking them. Plenty of people have already gotten DACA protection. If a new applicant is denied DACA protection, when a nearly identical applicant got protection last year, the person denied can sue the government for being arbitrary and demand equal protection under the law (14th amendment to the constitution).

Obama knew what he was doing... as soon as anybody gets DACA protection, that means everyone who qualifies does.

Trump will then try to change the requirements, but then again, any change to the program can be challenged by potential applicants.

"Sir, all you have to do to get your Muslim ban through is stop calling it a Muslim ban."

"Okay great. Bigly." Picks up phone. "Great news! Just told the amazing 'Legal' Muslim ban is TOTALLY going to get PASSED so we can MAGA!"

Is that what Obama really meant to have happen?

You mean the guy with a degree in constitutional law effectively uses the constitution?

Third Branch off the top rope!

Bah gawd King!

There's a reason his lawyers are hilariously shitty. All the good ones refuse to work for him.

Is that what Obama really meant to have happen?

(the answer is "yes, absolutely" cause Obama was a smart motherfucker and I mean that in a totally different way than when I describe Mike Pence as a motherfucker)

I love the judge using Trumps’ Tweets to support this decision.

Can you imagine being Trump's lawyer? He's got to be the absolute worst client.

I think there’s a very easy case to be made that Trump should be legally forced to recuse himself from all immigration issues. He’s a living violation of the 14th amendment as long as he’s president.

A Clinton appointee?

Inb4 DEEP STATE!

He doesn't pay.

The reason the lower court gave was that the reason Trump gave for rescinding DACA was the constitutional legality of Obama's original EO. The judge ruled that the president does not have the authority to make determinations on the legality of existing executive decisions. That authority is reserved for the judicial branch of government.

So Trump does have the authority to end it but not if the court determines his decision is unconstitutional. Trump attempting to make a proclamation of what existing policy is constitutional or not is not within the powers granted to the executive branch.

I cannot get enough of court decisions that use his own tweets against him

So is the deportation of the Dreamers cancelled then? This would be assuring if not for the latest SCOTUS.

an executive order was used to start this, right? why can't one be used to end it?

other than that, lol that trumps big public yelling has been used against his justice department in a court of law.

And we can throw it on the pile of Trump Russia mishigas, just look as these +50 links to Examples below:

Flynn

Manafort

Tillerson

Sessions

Kushner

Wray

Morgan, Lewis, & Bockius "Russian Law Firm of the Year"

Carter Page

Roger Stone

Felix Sater

Boris Epshteyn

Rosneft

Gazprom (see above)

Sergey Gorkov banker

Trump investments in Azerbaijan

"I Love Putin"

Lavrov

Sergey Kislyak

Oval Office

Gingrich Kislyak Phone Calls

Russian Business Interest

Emoluments Clause

Alex Schnaider

Hack of the DNC

Guccifer 2.0

Mike Pence "I don't know any"

Russians Mysteriously Dying

Trump's public request to Russia to hack Hillary's email

Trump house sale for $100 million at the bottom of the housing bust to the Russian fertilizer king

Russian fertilizer king's plane showing up in Concord, NC during Trump rally campaign

Nunes sudden flight to the White House in the night

Nunes personal investments in the Russian winery

Cyprus bank

Trump not Releasing his Tax Returns

The Republican Party's rejection of an amendment to require Trump to show his taxes

Election Hacking

GOP platform change to the Ukraine

Steele Dossier

Sally Yates Can't Testify

Intelligence Community's Investigative Reports

Trump reassurance that the Russian connection is all "fake news"

Chaffetz not willing to start an Investigation

Chaffetz suddenly deciding to go back to private life in the middle of an investigation

Appointment of Pam Bondi who was bribed by Trump in the Trump University scandal appointed to hea...

Chaffetz and White House blaming the poor vetting of Flynn on Obama

Poland and British intelligence gave information regarding the hacking back in 2015 to Paul Ryan ...

Agent M16 following the money

Trump team KNEW about Flynn's involvement but hired him anyway

Let's Fire Comey

Election night Russian trademark gifts s

Russian diplomatic compound electronic equipment destruction

let's give back the diplomatic compounds back to the Russians

Let's Back Away From Cuba

Donny Jr met with Russians

Donny Jr emails details "Russian Government's support for Trump"

Trump's secret second meeting with his boss Putin

Russian Money Permeating The GOP

Trump not Enforcing sanctions on Russian Arms Buyers Even though he had signed the bill earlier, he takes away the veto override power of congress by simple dereliction of duty.

Edit: thanks to /u/ BabiesOnQuack and /u/ PetGiraffe for compiling the original list that I added links to as well as the users over at /sub/keep_track

Something something, degrees and legal experience are for liberal snowflakes /s

DACA wasn't going to end until March 5 so no Dreamers were being deported yet and things can change before March 5, so this doesn't really change anything right now. Though if March 5 comes and goes with nothing else happening then this ruling seems like it would stop deportations since it'd stop the March 5 ending of DACA.

Since "can't a President repeal a policy set in place by another President?" will likely be an FAQ:

He can, but it depends how the policy is ended.

There are laws regarding what actions a president can and cannot direct agencies (such as Homeland Security, who runs DACA) to take. The Administrative Procedures Act ("APA") is one such law, and it subjects decisions made by federal agencies to judicial review. Specifically, a court will uphold a final agency action unless it is "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law." It's a check put in place by Congress on the broad administrative power of the President.

The point here is that while President Trump can repeal Obama actions, he can't do so just because he doesn't like Obama's haircut. There must be substantive reasoning presented as to why the action is rescinded. The judge explains in his ruling:

The APA thus sometimes places courts in the formalistic, even perverse, position of setting aside action that was clearly within the responsible agency's authority, simply because the agency gave the wrong reasons for, or failed to adequately explain, its decision.

The reasoning the defendants (the White House) presented was that DACA was illegal and needed to be ended immediately. The plaintiffs say that DACA was never illegal, the White Houses' statement was wrong, and so there was no real justification given for ending DACA. Here's the Judge Garaufis again:

the decision to end the DACA program appears to rest exclusively on a legal conclusion that the program was unconstitutional and violated the APA and INA. Because that conclusion was erroneous, the decision to end the DACA program cannot stand.

The constitution does indeed apply to anyone on American soil, because the supreme court decided it did hundreds of years ago.

For a summary of the history of these cases, please see this SCOTUS briefing.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/16-812-Immigration-Scholars-Cert-Amicus-Brie...

Edit* Oh, sorry, I ignored the "like I'm 5" part. Here's that version: the constitution isn't just the rules for how american people are treated. It's also the rules for how America treats people.

Even the judges were like hey we normally rubber stamp this but you did force us to block it

At the same time, what a sad world we live in where 149 character rants are key issues.

An entire special counsel investigation started because of tweets. He could have fired comey for having any reason, without ever having to state it.

Yet he did.

I think they meant he should stop cannonballing his dumb ass into immigration issues when he applies an obvious bias to his policies. His uncouth attitude and speech leads him straight into a wall of self-defeat every time.

Obama was smart enough to know the Republicans who blocked his every move as president, would try to undo everything he did. So naturally, he took the long way to make sure its as difficult as possible to do so.

I'm pretty sure that given enough time they could undo everything... but having to drag every action through the courts guarantees a 5-10 year process. And by that time, the people would have a chance to boot out the Republicans and elect a Democrat to fix everything. Yet again.

So Trump used DACA as a bargaining chip and the Dems benefited by making a meaningless concession to Trump/GOP. Hahahhahaha.

The art of the deal, folks.

I bet he’s into Spirit Cooking too!

Are you kidding? All the billable hours you could want and endless hilarious stories to share with your lawyer buddies.

It can, he just can't be an asshole about it.

His favorite pizza topping? Satan.

A community organizer is just not qualified to be presidreeeeent!!!!1

Obama knew what he was doing... as soon as anybody gets DACA protection, that means everyone who qualifies does.

The same is true for cannabis legalization. Once the government under Obama failed to bring a RICO suit in a timely manner, it more or less tied the government's hands going forward from being able to do so. Obama was massively underrated as a tactician by the ignorant right and angry left.

It's just basic civics.

Remember, when Trump was receiving a primer on the Bill of Rights he couldn't get past the Fourth Amendment.

John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!

That's some nD space chess, right there.

The Republican Party, MAGA hat purchases, and his guliable supporters are paying for his lawyers.

When the legal system is your biggest political opponent, maybe you need to rethink your policies.

This new ruling means that the administration must accept new applicants. There was a different district that mandated they accept renewal applications, but this definitely goes a step further in addition to reaffirming the 9th (I think) district. The Trump administration has fought both of these things. It is immediately important outside of the March deadline.

That's the thing--many people are open to immigration reform. We all know our system has issues. However, what this judge alluded to, and what many on the left can see to be true, is that this entire fraud is being orchestrated bc a certain sect of the US does not like immigrants and doesn't care if they live or die. Xenophobia is not a legal argument.

something something coastal liberal elites something something

Looking forward to another Trump tweet declaring he is taking the court to court.

Yeah, but since the president has gone on-record (on twitter) saying that he basically hates immigrants and DACA recipients, they're going to have a very hard time convincing the courts that it's a legitimate policy exercise and not just dogwhistle racism.

More like Mango Mussolini. He leans pretty right, not even close to left

Google this: A year a go, there was an article about how none of the top reputable large firms would take Trump as a client even though he could provide thousands of billable hours. The top two reasons all given by different firms were the same.

They worried he wont follow their legal advice. They worried he wont pay them whats owed.

Could have also been from the NBC interview with Lester Holt where he said "because of the Russia thing"

and now he has no collateral left to get his border wall funding in budget negotiations too.

Whaaa Whaaaaaahhhhhh

Makes you wonder how they have funding for anything... 20% legal fees and 80% allocated for... future legal fees?

Well Trump did apparently start his 2020 campaign hours after being sword into office, that way he could start taking donations ASAP...

i would be really impressed if this played out as schumer had hoped. that he knew trump didnt recind it properly and that somewhere down the line, a court would be able to "independently" show that.

From the decision:

The APA (Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 551) thus sometimes places courts in the formalistic, even perverse, position of setting aside action that was clearly within the responsible agency's authority, simply because the agency gave the wrong reasons for, or failed to adequately explain, its decision.

John Marshall was a Supreme Court justice who ordered the state of Georgia to stop seizing Cherokee land, and they just ignored the ruling and continued seizing it. Andrew Jackson, who was pro-Georgia, said "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it" meaning he will just break the law because the only thing the Supreme Court can do to stop him is write mean letters.

In one September tweet he said that if Congress didn’t act, “I will revisit this issue.”

Judge Garaufis said that undercut the president’s own legal team, saying it’s “not clear that the attorney general’s views are those of the administration he serves.”

We are starting to see the consequences of a White House that doesn't know what the fuck it's doing. Even when they try to take legal (but terrible) action, their absolute incompetence stands in the way like a brick wall.

Look at how many things they've tried to do that have been effortlessly thrown back in their face.

Mexico's wall invoice Muslim Ban Muslim Ban #2 Voter fraud commission Military Trans-Ban Despot-Parade etc, etc, etc,

Thank God Almighty this man has no idea what he's doing. There is a thin silver-lining that someone like Trump beat out the evil-but-competent candidates.

What does that even mean? How would a defendant/plaintiff recuse themselves?

In addition to precedent, Ostensibly, because the equal protection portion of Amendment XIV explicitly uses "any person" instead of "citizen".

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

To me, this interpretation makes sense, The amendment comes almost verbatim from the Reconstruction Era Civil Rights Act of 1866, which while it did not go as far, as it happens, is also still on the books as United States Code, § 1981,

All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.

That Trump had a family the he didn't even like!

Section 1, and more specifically how its worded.

As it is written, it states:

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws "

Notice the difference between the first and the 2nd/3rd parts of the sentence - the difference between "Citizens" and "People".

For now.

The judge said the Trump administration can still rescind the program in the future if it does it the right way.

Chicago

Coastal

It won't go to the Supreme Court for a while, and the Ninth Circuit is likely to expand on the rulings. They also already had a split ruling on DACA two years ago I think where they split 4-4. DACA has never been a permanent solution, it's called "deferred action" for a reason. These people have always been in need of Congressional action. But this will screw up the administration's plan to end the program by March, and it will force them to fight it out in the Supreme Court and give better reasons for ending the program. It will buy a lot of time. Hopefully in 2018 the elections help get that done, and perhaps after 2020 a broader solution that isn't just about dreamers can be reached. It will require Democratic control of both chambers of Congress.

Democratic politicians have to actually be competent. Republicans can get away with just being Republican.

Given time the Bush administration could have, yes. The Trump administration is almost entirely lead by incompetent sycophants, so I have my doubts. This kind of stuff is why they’re trying to pack the courts with authoritarians and idiots. We need to take the Senate so, so badly.

Well an EO can but you see... hrm how do I say this?... basically its a congressional oversight failsafe called APA the agency's of the executive branch can't make arbitrary rule changes among other things that will take a while to go into, but basically the ELI5 of it is if you don't have a solid reason to make a change you can either be challenged in court over it or congress can pass a simple majority ruling to overrule the change within 60days of the change being official.

These two routes are basically how the internet is trying to reverse the FCC's net neutrality repeal evidently someone took the court route to try to reverse trumps daca repeal

But they'll try and try again, like they are going to do with the transgender military ban later this month.

They'll still do it, judiciary be damned. Nobody will tell them not to or hold them accountable.

And a reputation in tatters after trying to defend Mango Mao.

The Constitution applies to everyone in America, regardless of their citizenship.

Look at the article and amendments that confer voting rights. They all clearly note that citizenship is a requirement for voting. If the Constitution only applies to citizens, there would be no need to specifically note citizenship as a requirement to vote.

I never appreciated our judicial branch as much as I have over the last year. They seem to be the some of the only ones with the balls to stand up to Trump to do what's right. Shout out to Mueller and the FBI though, hopefully they can put this administration to an end before they do much more damage.

I've had absolutely no faith in the dems being able to actually protect these people for the last month. Turns out they didnt actually need the dems to protect them because the dems actually understand how the government works. Huh.

Now we all get to sit back and watch Trump undermine the court and the very existence of law some more.

Because the president has to exercise his authority lawfully, not arbitrarily. If the previous president gave a sound legal basis for why his order correctly interprets and executes constitutional and statutory law, which has not changed between administrations, a new president has to explain why doing a 180-degree, contradictory policy would also be legal under the very same laws, and they can't give legally incorrect reasons why they are making the change.

Washington Times is a deeply conservative site. Not an accident that they added that in there.

even people that meet the DACA criteria can be denied as a matter of prosecutorial discretion.

True, but you gotta keep in mind the judge is assuming a non-insane president with that order... somebody who wont assume they can do whatever they want without the law telling them "no." Basically, he's assuming the people denied DACA status will be done so legally.

But Trump is probably just going to arbitrarily deny everyone without a reason. That would be subject to further lawsuits. THEN the judge would probably have to put a clause in there saying "you cant be arbitrary about denying applicants: you have to follow the rules."

I was planning to say something thoughtful and important, but instead I think I'll go with SUCK ON THAT YOU FUCKING RACIST PRICKS. Sorry about that.

This is so great. I wonder if the Democrats delaying dealing with DACA on the previous round of budget talks was partly because this ruling wasn't complete yet.

If so, the Dems got both S-CHIP funding and DACA and all the GOP got was a gigantic budget deficit they can't blame on anyone else.*

*(They will blame it on the Dems of course. But at least fewer moderates and independents will be easily fooled.)

Glorious, isn't it?

it's not that they are key issues, it's that they demonstrate what trump/the administrations intent is. they are a window into what goes on behind the scenes

Born in Hawaii.

Have we forgotten what the GOP and this administration said about those insignificant mounds of dirt in the middle of nowhere dictating American policy?

“Rusher Trump Trump Rusher” thing

You should read the article. The president killed it and said it was illegal and then tweeted he might consider extending the deadline. That's where he messed up. Is it illegal or not? Trump undercut his own legal team.

The Washington Times has some bad editorials, for sure, but it is not as bad as Breitbart.

This article in particular is solid.

Keep tweeting, shit head.

I'm tired of all this winning.

Aw, everyone else got to make-believe be salt-right and not use the /s :(

Fine...

Hot dogs and hamburgers = prostitutes! Look in the pizza hut basement. STUDY IT OUT, soycucks!

/s

Madison himself wrote at length that they were quite deliberate in their word choice while writing the Constitution. There are only a handful of sections that specifically say "Citizen"--most of them in reference to voting and holding office--where as most of the document just says "person" or something along those lines. The SCOTUS has also ruled several times that the Constitution applies to anyone on US soil, unless the protection in question specifies it only applies to citizens--e.g. if someone tried to vote and were not a citizen, they clearly broke the law and there's no real wiggle room there, but if they wanted to buy a gun despite not being a citizen, they are legally allowed to.

The courts exist to check the executive branch. Executive orders aren't law by fiat

So? Let them keep waisting their political capital on bad ideas and pissing people off.

Elections are less than 9 months away.

Bit of a verbal slip there...

... which is what I wish that sword would do also.

Yes but Pence refers to his wife as "mother" in public and likely in private. Never heard Barack call Michelle that.

Not if you want to get paid.

DACA doesn't give status. It simply creates a policy of non-enforcement.

There are some similar discussions going on about net neutrality saying it can't be overturned without some sort of reason.

Thank God Almighty this man has no idea what he's doing. There is a thin silver-lining that someone like Drumpf beat out the evil-but-competent candidates.

Thanking God for a Tump election isn't something I would do. Instead, I am asking God why he allowed this man to win. I would rather have Clinton in office than this orange Russian-friendly millionaire. As time is going on its becoming very clear that Clinton was the better choice and also a better moral choice as well. She wasn't Bernie and had baggage but Drumpf is actively dividing the nation, trust Russia more than his own government, is racist, has people in the White House without full clearances, continuously lies to us, etc....

"That's it? We got him?"

Basically it will mean that one President can implement administrative actions that can't be undone by his predecessor

But that's not what the judge said. He said the Commander-in-Orange fucked up by tweeting.

"“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,” wrote Judge Garaufis, a Clinton appointee to the court in New York. “Based on its review of the record before it, the court concludes that defendants have not done so.”

Mr. Trump had said the program was illegal and announced the phaseout, saying it was up to Congress to come up with a more firm legal status for Dreamers.

But in the months following, Mr. Trump had also said he would consider extending the March 5 deadline. In one September tweet he said that if Congress didn’t act, “I will revisit this issue.”

Judge Garaufis said that undercut the president’s own legal team, saying it’s “not clear that the attorney general’s views are those of the administration he serves.”

Oops

Ironic, since Obama's EO was illegal.

No lawsuit has yet ended in a court ruling it to be illegal, so no matter how good DACA opponents arguments might be, DACA is presumed legal as executive action that has not, yet, been found illegal in court. There was a court injunction against Obama's attempted expansion of DACA and that injunction was upheld but only because of a Supreme Court tie which left the merits of the arguments undecided.

Even he said he didn't have the authority to do it.

DACA policy was not set by presidential executive order but by a memorandum from the Secretary of Homeland Security directing DHS employees to exercise enforcement and prosecutorial discretion under the conditions laid out in her memo. The boss cop told the subordinate cops what to do, and that's DACA.

DACA isn't law.

No, but the immigration laws under Obama were the same as they are now, and since no court has yet ruled that DACA violated the law, DACA is presumed to be a valid interpretation.

Trump almost certainly has the authority to have a different policy, but the way the courts work, people can sue over what Trump does and Trump has to defend what he does, and court have to decide based on the facts of the case. When Trump argues DACA is unconstitutional, courts don't have a precedent that agrees with that so it falls to Trump to make the winning argument, he can't just pretend it's already proven true. If Trump can't cite a legal reason for his actions then opponents can cite all the things Trump has said to argue he's acting arbitrarily from racial animus.

that's what i'm a little confused about. if this was started by an executive order, why can't another one end it? that's what i'm stuck on.