Trump's Termination of DACA Program Unlawful, 4th Cir. Rules (1)
Source: Bloomberg Law
Trump's Termination of DACA Program Unlawful, 4th Cir. Rules (1)
May. 17, 2019 9:41AM Updated: May. 17, 2019 9:59AM
Second appeals court to rule against Trump administration on DACA
DHS is allowed to change its policy on information sharing
The Trump administration's decision to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program was illegal because it wasn't adequately explained, a split federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., ruled.
The May 17 decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit overturns a lower court's determination that the administration hadn't done anything wrong either in ending DACA or in the way it went about doing it. The Department of Homeland Security didn't adequately explain its rationale for ending the Obama-era program, the appeals court said in a 2-1 decision.
The Fourth Circuit joins the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco in finding that the decision to end DACA was unlawful. The current lack of a split among the federal appeals courts decreases the chance that the U.S. Supreme Court will take up the issue. In November, the administration appealed the Ninth Circuit decision to the Supreme Court, as well as two cases pending before the Second and District of Columbia circuits.
The justices haven't said one way or another what they will do with the cases.
....
The case is Casa de Maryland v. Dep't of Homeland Sec. , 4th Cir., No. 18-01521, 5/17/19 .
(Updated with additional reporting.)
To contact the reporter on this story: Laura D. Francis in Washington at lfrancis@bloomberglaw.com
To contact the editors responsible for this story: Jay-Anne B. Casuga at jcasuga@bloomberglaw.com; Terence Hyland at thyland@bloomberglaw.com
Read more: https://www.bloomberglaw.com/document/XCBC2D2O000000
Hat tip, Joe.My.God.:
Federal Appeals Court Rules Against Trump On DACA
https://www.joemygod.com/2019/05/federal-appeals-court-rules-against-trump-on-daca/
machoneman
(4,018 posts)Impeach!
calimary
(81,611 posts)For justice.
And for the history books.
AND for the cautionary tale effect. Itd be there to warn future scumbucket or cheater or otherwise illegitimate pResidents who might be tempted to flout the law or place themselves above it.
We CANNOT afford to let this bastard get away with it. We HAVE TO leave a mark. A mark on his name, a mark on his brand, a mark on his legacy, and a mark on his so-called pResidency.
BigmanPigman
(51,674 posts)Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)melm00se
(4,998 posts)Please correct me if I am wrong but as I understand it, DACA was done via Executive Order, not legislation. Does this mean that an Executive Order has the same force as legislation despite not being voted upon by the House and Senate?
If so (and removing the fact that this is immigration for a second), doesn't that scare anyone that a President, with a unilateral stroke of a pen, can put any policy in place that they see fit and it cannot be overturned?
stopwastingmymoney
(2,043 posts)Im paraphrasing from memory but, what judges have said is that once you bestow rights on someone, in exchange for them coming out of the shadows, you have essentially entered into a contract with that person. The DACA participants have performed their end of the contract by registering, so the govt cant just back out of its end of the deal.