The “Judicial Resistance” Didn’t Save DACA

Swim19 · 05-02-2018, 01:10 PM

Interesting analysis...I guess we can can partly thank Sessions for the courts siding with us?

Quote:

This narrative initially gained traction because the first two judges to block DACA’s rescission were left-leaning Democratic appointees. Its application to Bates, however, is laughable. A George W. Bush appointee, Bates cannot seriously be accused of liberal judicial activism; he is a deeply conservative and widely respected jurist who has never, in his 17 years on the bench, given any hint of partisan bias or impropriety. Bates’ thorough, fair-minded ruling undermines the partisan attacks on the decisions that preceded it. And it confirms that the individual most responsible for the continued survival of DACA is not a federal judge, but the man who tried to end the program: Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

Sessions is almost certainly Trump’s most effective and competent Cabinet member, but his attempt to rescind DACA was an uncharacteristically sloppy maneuver. Abolishing the program should have been easy. President Barack Obama created DACA via executive order, directing the Department of Homeland Security to allow a specific class of undocumented immigrants—young people brought to the U.S. unlawfully—to live and work here legally. To revoke DACA, Sessions need only put forth a clear statement explaining the constitutional, statutory, and policy justifications for discontinuing the program.

Instead, the attorney general issued a garbled one-page memo with minimal analysis. First, he suggested that DACA lacked “proper statutory authority.” Yet in 2014, the Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion finding that DACA did have this statutory authority. Trump’s OLC could have reversed this finding, but it did not, and Sessions failed to explain why he’d ignore an opinion that remains on the books. This inconsistency undercut his claim, unsupported by any meaningful reasoning, that DACA had no statutory authorization.

Second, Sessions justified DACA’s rescission by pointing to a 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling striking down the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents program, or DAPA, a decision the Supreme Court summarily affirmed. He wrote that DACA “has the same legal and constitutional defects that the courts recognized as to DAPA,” suggesting that DACA, if allowed to proceed, would ultimately be invalidated, too.

This logic, too, is badly flawed. The Supreme Court’s DAPA decision was 4–4, leaving the 5th Circuit’s ruling in place but setting no precedent, so it cannot be cited as definitive proof that DAPA was unlawful. Moreover, DAPA is not DACA; it was a far broader program designed to aid a sweeping class of adult immigrants in a more permanent manner than DACA does. Even if DAPA were undoubtedly illegal (which it isn’t), that would not mean that DACA is illegal, too. Finally, the 5th Circuit did not find that DAPA had “constitutional defects,” as Sessions’ memo implies. In reality, the court did not address the program’s purported constitutional defects at all. This blunder was so conspicuous that the Justice Department had to acknowledge it in court.

Quote:

Had Sessions stated in his memo that DACA conflicts with the current administration’s beliefs about immigration and executive power, it might’ve passed legal muster. By gesturing vaguely toward ambiguous case law instead, he made his decision vulnerable to court challenges. All three of the judges who’ve ruled to preserve DACA have said Sessions’ rescission violated the Administrative Procedure Act, which bars agency actions that are “arbitrary and capricious.”

Quote:

If anything, Bates’ ruling is exceedingly generous—not the product of “judicial resistance” but of a discerning judge interpreting the law and respecting the separation of powers. DACA’s opponents accuse Bates of imposing his political views on the administration in an effort to resist Trump. In reality, he gave Sessions a copy of Killing DACA for Dummies, gifting him a second chance to rescind the program without committing the amateurish errors that thwarted his first attempt

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...itude-did.html

2MoreYears · 05-02-2018, 01:27 PM

It's actually thanks to his incompetence. If he would've done his job right, there would be no DACA at all right now. In other words, his true intentions were never to make DACA survive. He deserves no credit.

Swim19 · 05-02-2018, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2MoreYears

It's actually thanks to his incompetence. If he would've done his job right, there would be no DACA at all right now. In other words, his true intentions were never to make DACA survive. He deserves no credit.

Well yea...that's the point the article is making.

VJB2 · 05-02-2018, 01:33 PM

He looked so smug and happy with himself when he came out to rescind it. So much for that, asshole.

Demise · 05-02-2018, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VJB2

He looked so smug and happy with himself when he came out to rescind it. So much for that, asshole.

Which federal prison do you think he'll end up in once this administration blows over?

NotADreamerPerSe · 05-02-2018, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VJB2

He looked so smug and happy with himself when he came out to rescind it. So much for that, asshole.

I'll never forget his stupid Keebler elf face and the glee radiating from it when he did that.

2MoreYears · 05-02-2018, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swim19

Well yea...that's the point the article is making.

Title suggests otherwise but fine.

bigdreamer2010 · 05-02-2018, 02:13 PM

It could be true that sessions and the justice department left this backdoor open on purpose. That makes more sense than just incompetence given that the justice department has literally hundreds of lawyers AND DAPA was killed because it “violated the administrative procedure act”. It makes no sense that it happened by accident.

I’m not sure what Paxton is pulling starting a lawsuit 14 days before the case is heard at the 9th and according to Karen Tumlin whatever ruling comes out of Texas has no impact on the current injunctions. We all knew this would end up at the Supreme Court so what’s the point? Is he assuming that the Supreme Court will reject to hear the case, bounce it back to the 9th where the injunction will remain in place and renewals would continue to be processed? Or is he just an asshole? It could be either.

Also does it even matter what Bates rules? Wasn’t there another federal judge that ruled in favor of trump ending daca? That didn’t have any impact on the renewals either.

I’m just so confused

dtrt09 · 05-02-2018, 02:27 PM

Millions of taxpayer funds wasted on these lawsuits; hundreds of thousands of donations wasted by nonprofit orgs on a program that frankly, should have been fixed by now.

We needed Dream Act 10 years ago. House needs to pass the discharge resolution, vote on a solution, send to the Senate and we all should be lobbying for this right now.

Swim19 · 05-02-2018, 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigdreamer2010

It could be true that sessions and the justice department left this backdoor open on purpose. That makes more sense than just incompetence given that the justice department has literally hundreds of lawyers AND DAPA was killed because it “violated the administrative procedure act”. It makes no sense that it happened by accident.

I’m not sure what Paxton is pulling starting a lawsuit 14 days before the case is heard at the 9th and according to Karen Tumlin whatever ruling comes out of Texas has no impact on the current injunctions. We all knew this would end up at the Supreme Court so what’s the point? Is he assuming that the Supreme Court will reject to hear the case, bounce it back to the 9th where the injunction will remain in place and renewals would continue to be processed? Or is he just an asshole? It could be either.

Also does it even matter what Bates rules? Wasn’t there another federal judge that ruled in favor of trump ending daca? That didn’t have any impact on the renewals either.

I’m just so confused

I'm confused by Paxon's lawsuit as well. Sessions/Government did end DACA, so it's strange for him to sue them now. Also most lawyers and legal analyst say it will be up to the Supreme Court anyway, so it doesn't make sense (except to stress everyone out).

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
					1	2
3	4	5	6	7	8	9
10	11	12	13	14	15	16
17	18	19	20	21	22	23
24	25	26	27	28	29	30
31

They need you!

Forum links

Resources

Join our list

National calendar of events

August

The “Judicial Resistance” Didn’t Save DACA