Versus regions of the university of california and related cases. General francisco, general francisco. In 2017, the fifth circuit held that dhaka and expansion were likely unlawful. Face of those decisions, the department of Homeland Security determined that it no longer wish to retain the policy based on its belief that the policy was illegal, has doubt about its illegality, and its general opposition to broad, nonenforcement policies. That decision did not violate the apa for two reasons. First, it is not subject to judicial review. Previousion ended a nonenforcement policy by which the department agreed to not enforce the ima against hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens. The decision whether or not to enforce the law is committed to the unreviewable discretion, unless the statute restricts it. Nothing in the ina requires the department, a Law Enforcement agency, do not enforce the law. Decision to and this nonenforcement policy was reasonable. Dr. Was a temporary measure that on
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 Was a temporary stopgap measure that on its face could be rescinded at any time, and the departments reasonable concerns about its legality in general opposition to broad nonenforcement policies provided more than a reasonable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 l
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
Keep americans working, and this is something that i in particular was working on with my republican colleagues and with democrats on this working group. The Airline Business in this country is about to shut down. Passenger rates are single digits. They cant stay afloat with this. And so it pains me to hear our solution to this problem, to keep Airline Workers working, it pains me to hear this described by my democratic friends as a bailout. Thats what would happen if we were just going to hand over cash to the airlines to keep them afloat, but thats not what were doing. What were doing is offering to pay loans, quick loans to the Airline Companies so that they can continue to pay their employees and keep them on the job and not put them on the unemployment rolls. These loans would be made at market rates. There would be no loan forgiveness. And they must be paid back. Not a grant, not a bailout. Its just offensive to me to hear some of my friends that perhaps have not read the bill an