Based on its belief the policy was illegal, and its general opposition to broad nonenforcement policies. The decision did not violate the apa for two reasons. First, it is not subject to judicial review. The decision is committed to the unreviewable discretion unless a statute restricts it, and nothing requires the department, a Law Enforcement agency, to not enforce the law. Second, the decision to end this nonenforcement policy was eminently reasonable. Was a temporary stopgap measure that on its face could be rescinded at any time, and the departments reasonable concerns about its legality in general opposition to broad nonenforcement policies provided more than a reasonable basis for ending it. After all, an agency is not required to push its legally dubious power to not enforce the law to its logical extreme since it undermines confidence in the rule of law itself and conflicts with the agencys Law Enforcement mission. I would like to begin with the review ability question. If the
Argument, which took place in november. Argument first this morning in case 18 587, the department of Homeland Security the university of california and the related cases. General francisco. Mr. Chief justice, and may it please the court, in 20, the dr. Ircuit held that daca and the expansion of daca were likely unlawful. In the face of those decisions, the department of Homeland Security reasonably determined that it no longer wished to do wish to retain the policy, based on its belief the policy was illegal, and its general opposition to broad nonenforcement policies. The decision did not violate the apa for two reasons. First, it is not subject to judicial review. The decision is committed to the unreviewable discretion unless a statute restricts it, and nothing requires the department, a Law Enforcement agency, to not enforce the law. Second, the decision to end this nonenforcement policy was eminently reasonable. Was a temporary stopgap measure that on its face could be rescinded
The Libyan Government in tripoli say theyve seized control of a major air base for more Khalifa Haftar. Antigovernment protesters emerge from course in hong kong after being charged in relation to mass rallies. And its a big part of tourism in kenya how corona virus is affecting its wildlife as a. Im going to go with sports as live go for turns to the u. S. Worry mcelroy Dustin Johnson with a Charity Match behind closed doors in florida raising more than 5000000. 00 for the fight against coronavirus. Now the country at the heart of the corona Virus Outbreak thats now infected nearly 5000000. 00 people around the world is defending its handling of the pandemic and chinas president says beijing supports an inquiry but only once the virus has brought under control had the World Health Organizations annual meeting she jinping also pledged money to fight the covert 19. China will provide 2000000000. 00 over 2 years to help with the global covered 1000. 00 response and to help with economic
Go against some peoples religious beliefs. Are broadcasting live direct from our studios in moscow this is our Team International thomas certainly got. The International Olympic committee has stated that russias Sports Movement is clear of any wrongdoing in the latest antidoping scandal the i. O. C. However says that it will support tough sanctions on russian authorities which have been accused of manipulating antidoping data bases this comes after a World Antidoping Agency Committee Recommended a 4 year ban be applied to russia for all major sporting events are trying to give us more. So just a day after the World Antidoping Agency came out with their accommodation for a 4 year ban on the russian side consisting of many elements the International Olympic Committee Said that it would support the toughest measures against those responsible for the manipulations with the databases but they pointed out that they believe the russian athletes and also the Russian National Olympic Committee
Verses regents of the university of california and the related cases. General francisco . Mr. Chief justice and may it please the court, in 2017 the fifth circuit held the dapa and the expansion of daca were unlawful, a judge in this court affirmed and in the decisions the department of Homeland Security reasonably determined that it no longer wished to retain the daca policy based on its belief that the policy was illegal, its serious doubts about its illegality and its general opposition to broad, nonenforcement policies. That decision did not violate the apa for two reasons. First, its not subject to judicial review. The rescission simply ended a previous nonenforcement policy whereby the department agreed to not enforce the ina against hundreds of thousands of illegal ail epps, but the decision whether or not to enforce the law is committed to the agencys unreviewable discretion unless a statute restricts it, and nothing in the ina requires the department, a Law Enforcement agency