DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Supreme Court rejects end to protections for young immigrants, a rebuke to Trump that upholds DACA

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected President Donald Trump’s effort to end legal protections for 650,000 young immigrants, a stunning rebuke to the president in the midst of his reelection campaign.

The outcome seems certain to elevate the issue in Trump's campaign, given the anti-immigrant rhetoric of his first presidential run in 2016 and immigration restrictions his administration has imposed since then.

The justices rejected administration arguments that the 8-year-old Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals Program is illegal and that courts have no role to play in reviewing the decision to end DACA.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court that the administration did not pursue the end of the program properly.

“We do not decide whether DACA or its rescission are sound policies,” Roberts wrote. “We address only whether the agency complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action. Here the agency failed to consider the conspicuous issues of whether to retain forbearance and what if anything to do about the hardship to DACA recipients.”

The Department of Homeland Security can try again, he wrote.

But for now, DACA recipients retain their protection from deportation and their authorization to work in the United States.

https://www.cleveland.com/nation/2020/06...immigrants.html

Lol ....and...........crickets.

Yeah but the damn fools prompted him to file again by saying they didn't handle it right. Trump has already said he will refile.

Press Releases

June 18, 2020 | Judicial Watch

Judicial Watch Statement on Supreme Court Ruling Protecting Obama ‘DACA’ Amnesty Program

‘[A]n effort to avoid a politically controversial but legally correct decision’ – Justice Thomas

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton made the following statement regarding the Supreme Court’s ruling against the Trump administration’s effort to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

The Supreme Court undermined the Constitution today. Obama’s decision to provide amnesty for hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens under the DACA program was unlawful, and the court interfered with the President Trump’s duty and absolute right to rescind it.

Chief Justice Roberts and his liberal colleagues ruled that it is illegal for President Trump to end an illegal Obama program. This is the Alice-in-Wonderland approach to judicial decision making. Chief Justice Roberts also joined the decision earlier this week that changes the meaning of sex in nation’s major civil rights law. Threats to the rule of law come not only from rioters and looters in the streets, but also from activist judges on the bench.

Only Congress can amend the law, not President Obama nor the courts. One cannot help but conclude that this decision is driven more by politics than the rule of law.

Judicial Watch has previously highlighted how DACA is not only illegal but a threat to the public safety. For example, we uncovered how the Obama administration granted DACA amnesty without the promised background checks.

We encourage the Trump administration not to give up but to end DACA now to preserve the rule of law, protect our borders, and ensure the public safety.

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-releases/daca-ruling/

What a load of slant and propaganda.

Basically, Roberts and the court said that the 45* administration could revisit this cluster any time they want, and if they choose to do things right, they might get different results.

You see, once again, this clown car full of amateurs took shortcuts like they did with the travel ban. I fully expect them to need 3 or 4 bites from this apple as well, because they never seen to learn.

The Court don't play around. Do it right, show your work, or we'll hand you your homework back until it's done properly.

Trump only hires the best lawyers.

Ironic. The real "clown car" driver was Obama with the ridiculous Executive Order on something as important as a million or so lives when legislation is what was/is needed. He was too busy trying to be a hero when what was needed was actual work and effort and compromise - things he ignored from day one with his pen and his phone.

The current guy has been asking Congress to create legislation since his first campaign. Nancy and Chuck want nothing to do with anything that might shine a positive light on Trump...or this country...regardless of the issue, effort or benefit to the country.

Executive order is not legislation...as much as the Obama team wanted it to be so.

The SC threw out Trump's reversal on a technicality of filing paperwork...they got that right...as weak as that reason is in this instance. The right of one POTUS to rescind the EOs of a previous POTUS is indisputable...they got that right too.

We are nearing election season...I expect the Dems to be out in full force damning the issue that their very own guy failed to address...and the day after the election, they will go back to doing nothing for the DACA people. That should sound familiar for those of us who've been around to watch the likes of Joe Biden do that ^ exact same thing to the black community...for 40+ years.

The fact you actually believe this is astounding.

Trump is the one who was trying to overturn DACA. The SCOTUS had to rule against Trump. And you post this kind of propaganda?

Now you are "astounded" because you are unknowing of the issue.

lmao

Yeah, it was the democrats who were fighting to overturn DACA. That's why the SCOTUS had to make a ruling.

Damn - I forgot. It was lazy Obama who didn't pass legislation ... it wasn't the "pass absolutely nothing and Stymie Obama at ALL costs" Republicans.

Come on - you can't rewrite history like that. I know in the Trump era #factsdontmatter but Obama turned to executive order to get stuff done because he was obstructed by the GOP on literally everything.

What are you talking about? Oh no, wait, here it is...

j/c...

Supreme Court OKs fast-track deportations

By JOSH GERSTEIN

06/25/2020 12:07 PM EDT

Just a week after granting a reprieve to the so-called Dreamers, the Supreme Court dealt a major defeat to immigrant rights advocates by upholding a fast-track deportation process that the Trump administration is seeking to expand.

The procedure, called "expedited removal," forces allegedly undocumented immigrants out of the country with little or no review by the judicial branch.

In a 7-2 decision Thursday, the justices held that the Constitution’s clause barring suspension of habeas corpus rights in peacetime does not preclude Congress from sharply limiting the rights of some foreigners to challenge their deportation in the federal courts.

While the ruling is a victory for the President Donald Trump and his high-profile effort to crackdown on illegal immigration, the legislation the justices upheld Thursday, which limits federal court involvement in expedited removal cases, was actually signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996.

The case the justices decided Thursday involved a Sri Lankan man, Vijayakumar Thuraissigiam, picked up by the Border Patrol about 25 yards from the Mexican border in 2017. Thuraissigiam maintains that he could be persecuted in Sri Lanka due to his Tamil heritage and political views, but it’s unclear whether he relayed those concerns clearly during the initial immigration proceedings. His lawyers say the translation was poor and he did not understand the questions being asked.

Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion, which was joined by all the court’s Republican nominees, said Congress has the right to create an expedited immigration process in cases involving individuals like Thuraissigiam who have weak ties to the U.S. at the time of their detention. Alito also held that the ancient writ of habeas corpus has no application to an immigrant who is not really seeking release, but legal status in the U.S.

“Simply releasing him would not provide the right to stay in the country that his petition ultimately seeks. Without a change in status, he would remain subject to arrest, detention, and removal,” Alito wrote. “The Government is happy to release him—provided the release occurs in the cabin of a plane bound for Sri Lanka…The relief requested falls outside the scope of the writ as it was understood when the Constitution was adopted.”

Alito also said allowing further judicial challenge threatened to bog down an asylum system that is already overwhelmed with a huge surge of cases

“The past decade has seen a 1,883% in credible-fear claims,” wrote Alito, an appointee of President George W. Bush. “If courts must review credible-fear claims that in the eyes of immigration officials and an immigration judge do not meet the low bar for such claims, expedited removal would augment the burdens on that system.”

The two dissenters were both Democratic appointees: Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. They said the majority decision abdicated the court’s responsibility to interpret the law and to protect individuals from arbitrary power.

“Today’s decision handcuffs the Judiciary’s ability to perform its constitutional duty to safeguard individual liberty and dismantles a critical component of the separation of powers,” Sotomayor wrote, joined by Ginsburg. “It will leave significant exercises of executive discretion unchecked in the very circumstance where the writ’s protections ‘have been strongest,’ And it increases the risk of erroneous immigration decisions that contravene governing statutes and treaties.”

Sotomayor also faulted Alito for suggesting constitutional principles should be be interpreted with an eye to governmental efficiency.

“The Court appears to justify its decision by adverting to the burdens of affording robust judicial review of asylum decisions. But our constitutional protections should not hinge on the vicissitudes of the political climate or bend to accommodate burdens on the Judiciary,” she wrote.

The high court’s two other Democratic appointees, Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, sided with the majority but took a more fact-specific approach, limited to circumstances closely resembling the case before the court. They agreed that Thuraissigiam could be thrown out of the country without further legal process.

However, Breyer and Ginsburg stressed that their views could well be different if the immigrant facing deportation had been in the U.S. longer or was captured far from the border. “Addressing more broadly whether the Suspension Clause protects people challenging removal decisions may raise a host of difficult questions,” Breyer wrote, joined by Ginsburg.


https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/25/supreme-court-fast-track-deportations-339739

I like 7-2 decisions no matter which way they go. I respect the decision. It is a consent decision.

We have to get away from straight 5-4 decision. That isn't good. The law is the law. You can't have right leaning or left leaning justices. You are going to have some of that some the time, but not all of the time.


Chief Justice Roberts is excellent. He hits both sides. I think he is trying to set a direction for the court. The Chief has some power in the court. My hope is his direction and example make other justices actually think about decisions and not just go along political lines.

Once politics enters the top court, we are in a heap of trouble.

I can agree with what you wrote. I think with Trump asking the SCOTUS to strike down Obamacare in the middle of the pandemic is exactly what you are saying shouldn't be.... Political.

That and people need healthcare insurance more than ever at the moment. That shows me a total disrespect for Americans.

I certainly agree with you. Sadly Chief Justice Roberts is the exception to the rule.

Daman, one thing I have learned over the years is that it is all about you. No other considerations. It's all about you.

Carry on dude, carry on.

So you think it's a good idea to take healthcare away from millions of people during a pandemic? How do you think that's "all about Damon"?

Pot meet kettle Peen.

Everything that Trump does is "ALL ABOUT HIM" and then you accuse me of being all about me.