SCOTUS heard oral arguments today in the case of Trump discontinuing DACA. DACA is a popular, but extra-legal policy cooked up and put in place by Obama, with no regard for due process. It allows illegal immigrant children to be here without fear of deportation, and it allows them access to work permits.

Reading the questions asked, it appears that SCOTUS is going to agree that Trump was within his constitutional powers in ending the program, and his decision is not subject to judicial review.

One interesting question is, what will Trump ask Congress to do to replace it?

Another is, will they define a whole set of Executive actions not subject to judicial review? At least a couple of Justices has publicly spoken against the notion that a federal judge anywhere in the system can issue an injunction against an Executive decision.

Winning!

We'll see; that gun ought not be jumped.

Obviously two edge sword.

What are the limits of Executive Action is my concern.

As much as we like Trump he isn't always gonna be in office.

Trump doesn't have to ask congress for anything.

DACA was an administrative action by one president that can be ended by another.

There was no legislation involved from the onset.

Just end it, and start the deportations.

Don't replace it with jack chit.

I agree. But trying to get these idiots in the House and Senate to pass anything besides a huge, pork ridden budget is futile.

From which Justice, I wonder?

FC

if he could use some modified (read more restricted) form of DACA to get a new immigration bill that we would find acceptable, it would be worth it. Of course that will never happen with a Democrat house focused on impeachment. And once impeachment fails, we won't need them. We may need to replace a few Republicans however.

Can't disagree with that.

In reality Constitutional Presidential Power has actually expanded from Washingtons time.

Congressional Critters have seceded at lot of that power for obvious reasons.

DACA was intended to raise up an estimated 800,000 predominantly Democrat voters.

That said, they were illegally brought to this country before they were old enough to have a voice in the matter, and have little to no connection to their home countries or language. So I think we have to do something that is compassionate and reasonable. I just strongly object to Obama making that rule all by himself, without action by Congress.

If they are behaving, and becoming good members of society, I'd say let them stay and work. But vote? Nope. Commit a crime? Off you go.

trump should ask congress to define illegal.

The t.v. said the Court ruling won't happen until June or so.

Yes, that is true. At this point, all we can do is surmise what is going on based on the questions asked.

I believe Rush has not-infrequently suggested they can stay, but can't vote for 25 years. I've not heard the counterargument...

FC

for sure

This ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

And there never should have even been a question that one executive order couldn't be replaced with another executive order.

Maybe logic will finally prevail, I hope, anyway.

MM

Can't vote for 25 years?????

WTF??

They can vote when they become citizens, and not before!

Hard for me to see that happening.

Zero was too gutless to make it more than a memo. An executive order is subject to congressional review. The pos Zero issued a pos memo.

Denton

I'll be interested to see how the liberal justices view the issue of executive orders, and if they try to make a distinction regarding DACA..

The issue regarding nationwide injunctions goes beyond executive orders. Justice Thomas has been quite outspoken regarding his dislike of the growing practice of District Court judges issuing injunctions that go beyond their jurisdictional boundaries.

Of course, Justice Thomas is right. It is absurd to think that any District Court judge, anywhere in the country, can enjoin an action by the Executive Branch. I would like to see that practice stopped.

Trump should just ignore such district rulings, give them the finger & tell them to try to enforce their injunction & get on with life.

MM

" So I think we have to do something that is compassionate and reasonable."

I think otherwise. We owe these illegals jack.

Anybody know what the issue(s) is(are)? Guess I don't care enough to read the briefs.

Was once a serious question, if the government grants something of value out of its largess, can the government take it back without due process applying? No idea if that was briefed but an interesting question nonetheless.

I don’t trust Roberts.

The Justices agreed to answer two questions:

1. Is the decision to end DACA subject to judicial review?

2. If it is subject to review, does it violate the law?

"Reliance interests" were very much part of the discussion. So apparently, if the government causes a situation where people rely on a policy, some sort of reliance interest is created.

OK, reliance is part of the due process argument. It's blackletter law that a statute or administrative decision cannot be arbitrary and capricious, it must serve some legitimate governmental interest. And by analogy repealing the act or administrative rule must serve some legitimate governmental interest too. (The more people rely, have a greater interest, the greater the government interest must be.) Popular line of reasoning among intellectuals in the early 1980's. Interesting that it should appear in a meaningful way at this late date.

What does the D in DACA stand for?

As with any illegal in this country anchor babies are the problem. It’s not today but it will be in 20 or so years.
Then chain migration fixes the illegals problems. Catch 22. Hasbeen

I have been flamed on this forum for saying that I have no problem with law abiding tax paying DACA kids remaining in this country. They go to the back of the citizenship request line and don't vote until they become citizens. They cannot be an avenue through which their parents are sponsored.