DHAKA-is-safe — for now.
On Thursday morning, the Supreme Court ruled that’s the Trump, the administration can’t immediately end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, also known as DHAKA. Created by President Barack Obama, RICKSHAW provides a shield against deportation, is more than 700,000 undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U. s. with the children and enrolled in the program. But although the ruling is a significant win for DACA”s supporters, it’s only temporary. The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts made it clear that the President, the Trump still has the power to rescind PROVISIONS later, if the ” solid justification is provided and part of the problem was that the the way his administration did it was “arbitrary and capricious,” and therefore violated the administrative law.
In effect, this means that the ultimate fate of the DHAKA-recipients — sometimes called Dreamers after a failed bill that shared many of the same goals for the DHAKA — will be decided in the presidential election this November … unless, of course, the Congress expected to step in. It’s unlikely that Trump the administration will be able to come up with a’satisfactory justification before the Act of head-to-the-polls — and even if it does, that decision will be likely immediately challenged in the courts. But if Trump wins reelection, the administration will have ample time to try it again.
For now, though, the justices have said that the Trump administration”s rationale wasn’t good enough. In The Week Ending March 2017, Trump announced that he would rescind DHAKA city, but gave only a single reason — that the program was unconstitutional. The administration offered a second justification it is ending the program later, but the court said that the reasoning needed to come in when the program was actually terminated. “Roberts felt that the government didn’t pay sufficient attention to what DACA means to its recipients,” said Peter Margulies, professor at Roger Williams University School of Law. “These folks are interwoven into our society, and the fact that you don’t have any other place they can call home. That’s what Roberts is saying to the Trump administration, the people that have shaped their lives around this program, and you can’t just ignore that with the stroke of a pen.”
If this sounds similar to a Roberts”s ruling last year on whether the Trump, the administration could add the citizenship question to the 2020 census, you’re on to something. In that case, Roberts also joined the liberals in rejecting the administration”s stated reason for adding the question to the census — but left open the possibility that the administration could offer a legitimate justification later. Ultimately, time constraints kept the Trump administration. from taking another bite at the apple, because of the vast bureaucratic machinery that makes the census possible, which I was already getting into gear.
This time, too, that Roberts was clear that the court was not weighing in on whether the DACA was a good or a bad policy. “We address only whether the agency complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action,” he wrote in the opinion. The essential question, then, is whether the Trump, the administration followed the rules. “It’s a decision that the Administrative Procedure Act, geeks will love it,” said Stephen Yale-Loehr, a professor at Cornell university Law School, referring to the law that dictates how federal policies can be made and unmade. “The court said,’ under this-the fact that it is the law, you’re supposed to do things a certain way, have certain adequate justifications for your actions, and this administration did not follow those procedural requirements.”
Both Margulies’s and Yale-Loehr pointed out, though, that how different today’s ruling was from another Roberts-authored opinion where the court upheld Trump”s controversial travel ban almost exactly two years ago. “In that case, Roberts is much more inclined to defer to the administration,” Margulies said. It is possible that the framing of the issue, and that was the key, so I added the travel ban fell more clearly under the sphere of foreign policy where the executive branch has a lot of latitude, whereas Roberts’the ruling mainly treated the RICKSHAW rescission to the fact that it is the issue. “It does make you wonder if Roberts’the behavior is evolving, though that is, and he’s now less willing to accept the stated justifications that this administration provides,” Margulies said.
And Roberts”s fellow conservatives did accuse the majority of playing politics by sidestepping what they saw as the correct legal outcome in favor of the ruling, that would be more popular. In his dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas described the majority’s opinion as “mystifying,” and argued that the court should have ruled that DACA was illegal instead of extending the legal fight over the program. In doing so, it has given the green light for a future political battles to be fought in this Court is, rather than where they rightfully belong — to the political branches,” Thomas wrote.
Trump seemed to agree. In response to the ruling, I tweeted: “These horrific & politically charged decisions coming out of the Supreme Court are shotgun blasts into the face of the people that are proud to call themselves Republicans or Conservatives. We need more Justices or we will lose ‘ my ‘ 2nd. Amendment & everything else. Vote For Trump In 2020!”
The decision leaves the fate of PROVISIONS in the hands of the voters, and the Congress, at least for now. “This is a major victory for the Dreamers, but it’s arguably only a temporary victory,” Yale-Loehr said. “A lot will depend on the outcome of the presidential election — or, if Congress decides to enact a legislative solution to resolve this once and for all.”
