DID YOU EVEN READ THE DECISION?

By: Lexo



THE MAJORITY SCHOOLED THE DISSENT in this case, which is of course not a difficult thing to do since THOMAS was the lead dissenting justice.

Acting Secretary of Homeland Security 'Duke' failed to comply with the APA by simply echoing the AG's view that DACA is illegal. The court remanded for compliance with the APA's due process procedures.  At that point, the DHS had a choice between two alternatives either give a more detailed explanation of the rational that was given at the time the decision to terminate was made, or issue a new decision to terminate with addional reasons that were not advanced before. Secretary NEILSEN decided to give a more detailed explanation of Acting Secretary Duke's decision rather than go through a new process, but rather than expand on Duke's reasoning she gave post hoc explanations, meaning that she gave totally new reasons for the prior decision to terminate. This is called post hoc (or after the fact) rationalization. YOU CANNOT DO THAT UNDER THE APA. That is problem number 1.

2. When Duke sought to terminate DACA she was acting on the instruction of the Attorney General who has sole authority to interprete the Immigration and Naturalization ACT (INA).  The AG told Acting Secretary of DHS Duke after the 5th Circuit struck down the Deferred Action on Parents of American Citizens and Legal Permanent Residents (DAPA) that the leagility problems with DAPA also rendered DACA illegal. Again this is within the purview of the AG, but in deciding to terminate DACA, Acting Secretary Duke merely ruled that DACA was illegal without distinguishing between the forebearance part of DACA (that is the deferred action part) and the eligibility part (that is the work permit, social security, and medicare benefits  part). This was a grevious error because DAPA had been struck down because of the program granting elibility benefits to 4.3 million illegals and not because of the foreberance from deporting the illegals. Are you starting to get this now. 

3. DACA is a non enforcement policy which means it is not subject to review by the courts, one of the critical elements of review is the reliance on the policy by the beneficiaries. There was evidence of the tremendous reliance by DACA receipients, their employers, their students, their schools, and even the economy, on the program. There was evidence that it would cost billions of dollars to retrain employees that would have to replace DACA recipients if they were removed from their jobs, and that DACA recepients had about 200,000 US citizen children who would be separated from their parents. The DHS did not address this reliance issue and merely tried to ram through the termination of Dca. The Court agrees that reliance was not necessarily a dispositive issue, but that does not absolve the Administration from conducting the analysis and granting the opponents of the action a hearing on the issue. The Administrations failure to address this made the deciion arbitrary and capricious.  Failure to separate the forbearnce element of DACA from the eligibility for benefits element likewise made the decision arbitrary and capricious. In short DACA is not illegal merely because DAPA had been declared illegal because DACA has two separate and distinct benefits and the rational for declaring DAPA illegal only covered one of the benefits in DACA (the eligibility for government benefits such as work permits, Social Security and Medicare).

4. The majority also considered and rejected the DACA proponent's argument that terminating DACA violated their Equal Protection Rights because it discriminated against Mexicans. Sorry El Trojan but the court found that there was no discrimination against Mexicans in the decision to terminate DACA. The disparate impact on Mexicans is merely a consequence of the reality that Mexicans make up the bulk of the undocumented in the Country therefore any enforcement action will affect Mexicans in larger numbers.

THE COURT ACTUALLY RULED THAT THE AG AND SEC OF DHS HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO TERMINATE DACA, IT ONLY RULED THAT IT MUST BE DONE ACCORDING TO THE APA AND ITS DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS. 

I HAVE NO IDEA WHY ANYONE WOULD ARGUE WITH THIS. 

GO BACK AND DO IT RIGHT!!!!!

 

 

Post Please Log in OR Register for an account before posting.