Politics The DACA decision and regulatory rule of law

00:40  01 july  2020
00:40  01 july  2020 Source:   thehill.com

Trump suggests another attempt at rolling back DACA

  Trump suggests another attempt at rolling back DACA President Donald Trump indicated Friday that he would try again to end the Obama-era program protecting undocumented immigrants who came to the country as children, a day after the Supreme Court ruled that his administration erred in how it carried out the first attempt. The president in a series of tweets said the administration “will […] The post Trump suggests another attempt at rolling back DACA appeared first on Roll Call.

The DACA Decision and the Judicial Threat to the Rule of Law . But the travel-ban decisions — as egregious as they are — represent models of judicial restraint compared with the unfolding judicial defiance of the Trump administration’s decision to rescind Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals

( DACA ) case, the Supreme Court, ruling on the three injunctions blocking the rescission of the of Congress to pass the DREAM Act bill as the driver behind Obama's decision to sign DACA .[25]. Procedural rules of the Court in the case of a tie would mean that no opinion would be written, no

The Supreme Court's decision to strike down the Trump administration's hardline treatment of child immigrants - "Dreamers" - was a major setback for the administration. The ruling, however, did more than just send the Trump administration back to the drawing board on the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. The court majority, in an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, rejected the Trump administration's brazen efforts to evade judicial scrutiny, while also strengthening the regulatory rule of law fundamentals that the administration has flouted with regularity. This ruling will become central to dozens of pending battles over other Trump regulatory rollbacks.

Have Democrats Finally Intimidated Conservatives On The Supreme Court?

  Have Democrats Finally Intimidated Conservatives On The Supreme Court? There are still major cases to be decidedAs the Supreme Court nears the end of its 2019-2020 term, it is becoming increasingly questionable whether the “conservative majority” that Trump appointees Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were supposed to have ushered in actually exists.

the rule of law do not make a judgment about the "justness" of law itself, but define specific procedural attributes that a legal framework must have in order to be The substantive interpretation preferred by Dworkin, Laws , and Allan, holds that the rule of law intrinsically protects some or all individual rights.

DHS also had concluded that under pre-existing statutory and regulatory provisions a grant of deferred action would trigger certain collateral benefits for First, as the Attorney General concluded, the DACA policy was contrary to law . The Fifth Circuit ruled that DAPA should be enjoined on a nationwide

a group of people standing in front of a sign: The DACA decision and regulatory rule of law © Getty Images The DACA decision and regulatory rule of law

In rolling back DACA, the Trump administration offered little justification, with the initial explanation a vague assertion that the Obama administration lacked the legal authority for the DACA policy. Pressed by lower courts, Trump's regulators later offered a few more justifications, but stuck with the earlier action. The administration's strategy seemed heavily banked on hopes that the conservative majority of the Supreme Court would ignore the administration's failures to provide a "reasoned" justification, as required by decades of court precedent. The court majority, however, refused to go along. Speaking for the court, Roberts explained that public accountability demands that agencies remain stuck with their "contemporaneous explanation," unable later to provide new rationales for an earlier choice. While agencies often have legal room to adjust their policies, they cannot skirt their legal obligations to provide a single reasoned explanation, grappling correctly with the law and providing frank analysis of effects.

Trump scores court win on hospital price transparency

  Trump scores court win on hospital price transparency President Trump touted a "big victory" after a federal judge rejected the American Hospital Association's challenge to a rule forcing them to disclose prices negotiated with insurers. © Provided by FOX News "BIG VICTORY for patients – Federal court UPHOLDS hospital price transparency," Trump wrote on Twitter on Tuesday. "Patients deserve to know the price of care BEFORE they enter the hospital. Because of my action, they will. This may very well be bigger than healthcare itself.

If rescinding DACA requires a substantive rule , that implies that the creation of DACA was a substantive rule as well. For the law students looking for issues to move up to an A on their example, there are constitutional issues that could be raised to show DACA is unlawful.

Regulatory law refers to law promulgated by an executive branch agency under a delegation from a legislature. The administrative agencies are to create procedures, applications, licenses, appeals and one other important thing called decision making.

Significantly, that "lack of authority" argument has been a frequent go-to rationale for the Trump administration. For example, in rollbacks of the Obama Clean Power Plan regulating greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, as well as the Obama Clean Water Rule defining what is a protected "water of the United States," the Trump administration similarly argued that EPA never had the statutory power it asserted during the Obama administration. The DACA case makes clear that this is a perilous strategy. If the agency "fails to appreciate the full scope of [its] discretion," then the decision is "arbitrary and capricious" and the agency must start over.

Similarly, the court concluded that the administration had illegally ignored "reliance interests" in its justification for rolling back DACA. The administration mentioned this as an "asserted" factor, but did not do the tougher work of actually gathering data and analyzing the rollback's implications for immigrants who'd built a life in the United States because of the DACA policy, or the implications for the many businesses and institutions benefitting from the contributions of Dreamers. Vast personal and economic costs are identified by the court as at stake but were illegally ignored by the Trump officials.

Zia Khan on the future impacted by coronavirus

  Zia Khan on the future impacted by coronavirus To get safe AI, we need regulatory oversight.We know that things will change; how they’ll change is a mystery. To envision a future altered by coronavirus, Quartz asked dozens of experts for their best predictions on how the world will be different in five years.

12 “ decided on a case by case basis.” 3 The Fifth Circuit affirmed in a split decision but added a further ground for affirmance. 4 Texas, 809 F.3d at 178. Over a dissent, the appellate panel added the ground that DAPA was 5 substantively foreclosed by statute because the INA contained “an intricate

Important information about DACA requests: Due to federal court orders, USCIS has resumed accepting requests to renew a grant of deferred action under DACA . USCIS is not accepting requ.

If the Trump administration expected that its many fast-tracked and poorly reasoned deregulatory actions would be affirmed by a conservative Supreme Court, this rejection dashes that expectation. The Supreme Court similarly dashed hopes for easy regulatory policy shifts when last year it rejected the administration's effort to add a citizenship question to the census, calling it rooted in a "contrived" rationale.

DHS v. Regents will now become a central precedent in the dozens of cases challenging Trump administration rollbacks. This case's affirmation of regulatory rule of law fundamentals will also have good government effects, pressing regulators to provide full and honest analysis of their legal authority and effects of regulatory actions.

Unsurprisingly, the administration has indicated it will try again to rescind the DACA Dreamers' policy. Due to this Supreme Court decision, this time around it cannot again try to do so on the cheap. It must provide a much more complete legal explanation and also do the hard - and more politically accountable and perilous - work of publicly admitting the human costs flowing from its choices. And through this court-executive branch give-and-take, accountability and the rule of law have both been enhanced.

William W. Buzbee is a professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center, and a member scholar of the Center for Progressive Reform.

Federal court strikes down Trump's asylum ban .
The CAIR Coalition, Human Rights First, RAICES, Hogan Lovells and nine individual asylum-seekers brought the suit in August 2019. What’s next: With the rule now vacated, the administration must begin a new rulemaking process if it wants to implement a similar policy.The Departments of Homeland Security and Justice did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Josh Gerstein contributed to this report.

—   Share news in the SOC. Networks
usr: 0
This is interesting!