https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/18/politics/daca-immigration-supreme-court/index.html
"The ruling emphasizes that the administration failed to provide an adequate reason to justify ending the DACA program.
"We do not decide whether DACA or its rescission are sound policies," Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. "'The wisdom' of those decisions 'is none of our concern.' We address only whether the agency complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action."
It is a blow to the Trump administration, as immigration reform has been a lynchpin of Trump's agenda. It means that for now, participants in the program can continue to renew membership in the program that offers them work authorization and temporary protection from deportation.
However, the Trump administration could move, again, to try to rescind the program, but this time the administration will have to provide a better explanation grounded in policy for its reason for termination."
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/503484-supreme-court-surprises-rattle-disappointed-right
The Supreme Court has delivered two severe blows to the White House and the conservative movement this week on immigration and gay rights, delighting Democrats and activists who were expecting the worst.
The decisions, rejecting President Trump’s rescission of the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program Thursday and shielding LGBT employees from workplace discrimination Tuesday, disappointed GOP senators and conservative scholars, who were left complaining that justices appointed by Republicans had betrayed them.
And they led to the characteristic explosion on Twitter by Trump, who wrote of the need for new justices after Chief Justice John Roberts ruled against him once, and Justice Neil Gorsuch — a Trump nominee — joined Roberts in ruling against him on the gay rights decision.
This week also saw the court decline Trump’s request to review California's so-called sanctuary laws, which limit cooperation between local and federal authorities. This dealt another setback to Trump’s immigration agenda after the court last term stopped the administration from adding a citizenship question to the census, with Roberts writing the 5-4 opinion.
“The recent Supreme Court decisions, not only on DACA, Sanctuary Cities, Census, and others, tell you only one thing, we need NEW JUSTICES of the Supreme Court,” Trump tweeted. “If the Radical Left Democrats assume power, your Second Amendment, Right to Life, Secure Borders, and Religious Liberty, among many other things, are OVER and GONE!”
Court watchers generally agree that Trump has tilted the court to the right, particularly by replacing the since-retired Justice Anthony Kennedy, formerly the court’s swing vote, with the more conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Trump also added the 54-year-old Gorsuch, the court’s youngest member.
As a result of the bench’s changing composition in recent years, Roberts now figures as something of the new ideological center. But analysts say the chief justice retains a strong conservative bent, which is why many were surprised to see Roberts join the court’s liberal bloc in preserving DACA.
That decision keeps intact a deportation reprieve for nearly 700,000 young undocumented immigrants. But it also upends a key feature of Trump’s immigration agenda and foils a longstanding promise dating back to his 2016 presidential campaign to end Obama’s “illegal executive amnesties.”
By Thursday, after sustaining a pair of landmark Supreme Court defeats, conservatives were describing the court in ever more urgent and even ghastly terms, with Trump calling the decisions “shotgun blasts into the face” of Republicans.
For some conservatives, the biggest surprise this week was the decision by Gorsuch, one of Trump’s hand-picked justices, to vote in favor of expanding civil rights protections to gay and transgender people — a position the administration opposed. Gorsuch and Roberts joined the court’s liberal wing to form a 6-3 majority, with Gorsuch writing the opinion.
“I think some social conservatives who are on the front lines of the culture wars involving the rights of transgender people will be deeply disappointed in Gorsuch,” said Robert Tsai, a law professor and constitutional scholar at American University.
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who clerked for Roberts after graduating from Yale Law School, reacted to this week’s rulings with a sense of betrayal by the court. He said the LGBT decision was a blow to the evangelical conservatives who had been a driving force behind the effort to push the judiciary to the right.
“It represents the end of the conservative legal movement, or the conservative legal project, as we know it,” Hawley said of the decision. “If we’ve been fighting for originalism and textualism and this is the result of that, then I have to say that we haven’t been fighting for very much.”
For their part, Democrats hailed the decisions. Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) at a press conference Thursday went so far as suggesting the developments had restored his shaken faith in the rule of law.
“In this very difficult time, the Supreme Court provided a bright ray of sunshine this week with the decision on Monday preventing discrimination in employment against the LGBTQ community, and now with this DACA decision," Schumer said. “To me, frankly, the Court's decisions were surprising but welcome and gives you some faith that the laws and rules ... of this country can be upheld.”
metmike: What I object to the most is that every decision and every event and every topic has to be described with 2 extremes that strongly oppose each other and there is no middle ground. One side always sees things one way and the other side sees things exactly the opposite.............and the MSM always describes it that way. If you listen to them, they tell you that if you are a democrat.........THIS is what you must believe. If a republican.........THIS is what you must believe and its always the exact opposite of the other side and Trumps position on everything is usually the way to sort it out.
As if every Republican was 100% against gay rights and Democrats for them and this decision was devastating to Republicans. To me, the decision was a no brainer in favor of LGBT rights and I'm not sure why so many people were supposedly surprised.......or at least thats the way the MSM describes it.......because they view everything as being one extreme against the other extreme and no people that see both sides or that are on one side part of the time and the other side for other things.
this is a topic where trump is wrong, and the supreme court is right. if a child is brought here at the age of 2, and this is the only country they know, then they should Not be punished by sending them back to el salvador. (a place they have never lived).
give the kid a green card, and let them stay and work. (we don't have to give them citizenship). let them stay as long as they don't commit a felony.
if it were up to me, i'd increase immigration dramatically. maybe allow 4k people from each country to apply to come become citizens. make it spread more evenly around the globe. i'd also have a questionaire. favor people who love capitalism, and believe it is their job to support themself (their own family). if a person wants lots of socialism, then reject their application. (let that application get lost in the bottom of the filing cabinet).
Bear,
I agree with that. It only seems fair and compassionate.
I think that the 2 sides see more to it than that however and future votes, unfortunately are probably part of it.
Your scenario does not make them voting citizens I assume but I would think many of them would become voting citizens. Most illegal aliens now, if they gained voting rights would vote the democratic parts.
Probably most legal immigrants coming in, many who are poor would be democratic voters.
Then there is the law. Going strictly by the book, you can say these people are not legal and should be kicked out. That's not what I think as I agree with you as mentioned earlier.
The Supreme Court apparently didn't even rule on the legality of the law but claimed that it wasn't filed properly and if they resubmit it properly, then they will actually rule on whether Trump can do it and it appears as if he can.
https://www.npr.org/2020/06/18/829858289/supreme-court-upholds-daca-in-blow-to-trump-administration
"While the decision gives DACA and its hundreds of thousands of recipients a lifeline, the issue is far from settled. The court decided that the way Trump went about canceling DACA was illegal, but all the justices seemed to agree that the president does have the authority to cancel the program if done properly."
The fact is, there is no constitutional justification for Obama's executive over reach of the DACA executive order. Simple as that. Trump is not opposed to DACA. He has stated that the program needs legislative definition/approval/passage. It's simply Trump insisting that we follow the constitution. It's overturn was a slam dunk and the supremes once again engaged in judicial activism Roberts continues to baffle me.
So Trump is asking his team to put together a better argument for an issue that should not require an argument.