Justice Dept. tells Supreme Court decision to end DACA was lawful

[Elderberry]

CNN By Ariane de Vogue 8/20/2019

The Justice Department told the Supreme Court late Monday night that the Trump administration acted lawfully when it decided in 2017 to wind down the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, which protects undocumented immigrants who came to the United States as children from deportation.

"At best, DACA is legally questionable," Solicitor General Noel Francisco argued in legal briefs. "At worst, it is illegal."

Francisco stressed that the executive branch was within its authority to phase out the Obama-era program and that the lower courts "erred" in "second-guessing" the Department of Homeland Security's "entirely rational judgment to stop facilitating ongoing violations of federal law on a massive scale."

As things stand, two nationwide preliminary injunctions issued by lower courts have forced DHS to continue to allow renewals in the program for nearly two years.

The legal brief comes as the Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case on November 12.

More: https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/20/politics/justice-department-deferred-action-for-childhood-arrivals-supreme-court/index.html

[Cyber Liberty]

This will be an interesting test of the lower court doctrine that "A benefit giveth by a President cannot be taketh away by a President."  Does a ratchet exist in law?

[Sanguine]

This will be an interesting test of the lower court doctrine that "A benefit giveth by a President cannot be taketh away by a President."  Does a ratchet exist in law?

Yes, it will.

[Cyber Liberty]

Yes, it will.

The concept, as explained to me by another good Briefer, is that it's a "benefit," and therefore subject to statutes governing procedures.  It will be very interesting to see what the highest court of the land thinks.  I assume the decision will be deeply unsatisfying for everybody.

[Bill Cipher]

This will be an interesting test of the lower court doctrine that "A benefit giveth by a President cannot be taketh away by a President."  Does a ratchet exist in law?

Due process is not some cutesy “lower court doctrine” but a fundamental Constitutional precept. 

[roamer_1]

The concept, as explained to me by another good Briefer, is that it's a "benefit," and therefore subject to statutes governing procedures.  It will be very interesting to see what the highest court of the land thinks.  I assume the decision will be deeply unsatisfying for everybody.

Of course the idea is absurd, For if anything a prestdent orders as a benefit abides, Then we have not a president, but a king.

[Cyber Liberty]

Due process is not some cutesy “lower court doctrine” but a fundamental Constitutional precept.

Not always.  For example, see any of the "Red Flag" threads currently running. 

[Bigun]

Of course, the idea is absurd. For if anything a president orders as a benefit abides, we have not a president, but a king.

  

It was absurd that Obama was allowed to create it, to begin with, and equally so that the current president is not allowed to end it in the same manner it was created.  Completely absurd!

[Bill Cipher]

Not always.  For example, see any of the "Red Flag" threads currently running. 

Yes always.  The difficult part is figuring out in each instance what due process requires.

[Cyber Liberty]

Yes always.  The difficult part is figuring out in each instance what due process requires.

Correct.  Universal Nation-wide Injunctions issued by the lowest level National Courts short-circuit that process.

[Bill Cipher]

Correct.  Universal Nation-wide Injunctions issued by the lowest level National Courts short-circuit that process.

Not necessarily.  You’re mixing apples and oranges here.

[Cyber Liberty]

Not necessarily.  You’re mixing apples and oranges here.

I probably am.  So, what do you think of the arguments made before SCOTUS?  Do they have merit?

[Bill Cipher]

I probably am.  So, what do you think of the arguments made before SCOTUS?  Do they have merit?

I haven’t had a chance to read them through in great detail, so that’s an open question. 

[Cyber Liberty]

I haven’t had a chance to read them through in great detail, so that’s an open question.

Cool beans, thanks!

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Due process is not some cutesy “lower court doctrine” but a fundamental Constitutional precept.

Except the predicate for due process is that something is being taken away to which you had a valid legal right in the first place.  The Constitution doesn't grant to the President the power to give benefits to citizens without Congressional action.  To the extent legislation purports to give the President that discretion, that makes any "right" a purely discretionary/arbitrary one to which no due process rights should attach.

I'd be stunned if SCOTUS upheld DACA.  It would essentially give "Executive Orders" -- which appear nowhere in the Constitution -- the same legal effect as a statute.  Except it would be a statute that didn't have to be passed by Congress.

[rustynail]

The 'Justice Department' are Not Judges.  Judges Rule DOJ drools.

[Bigun]

Except the predicate for due process is that something is being taken away to which you had a valid right in the first place.  The Constitution doesn't grant to the President the power to give benefits to citizens without Congressional action.  To the extent legislation purports to give the President that discretion, that makes any "right" a purely discretionary/arbitrary one to which no due process rights should attach.

I'd be stunned if SCOTUS upheld DACA.  It would essentially give "Executive Orders" -- which appear nowhere in the Constitution -- the same legal effect as a statute.  Except it would be a statute that didn't have to be passed by Congress.

Thank you @Maj. Bill Martin.  Perhaps it will soak in this time.

[Cyber Liberty]

I'd be stunned if SCOTUS upheld DACA.  It would essentially give "Executive Orders" -- which appear nowhere in the Constitution -- the same legal effect as a statute.  Except it would be a statute that didn't have to be passed by Congress.

And a statute that cannot be undone by a future EO.