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 Was a temporary stopgap measure that on its face could be rescinded at any time, and the departments reasonable concerns about its legality in general opposition to broad nonenforcement policies provided more than a reasonable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
Was expressly modeled on it. After trial the District Court ruled 620 is unconstitutional finding no material differences between this case and Womens Health. Unburdened it found act 620 would leave louisiana with just one clinic and one doctor providing abortions. At the same time it found act 620 would do nothing for Womens Health. In reversing the District Court decision the fifth circuit committed two fundamental errors. First, it usurped the role of the District Court and disregarded all of its factual findings. Second the fifth circuit accepted legal arguments that this court rejected four years ago. Nothing has changed that would justify such a legal aboutface. Even more medical organizations joined the a and 8 is admitting privileges impose barriers to abortion with no benefit patients and this impact the states Eleventh Hour objection to thirdparty standing runs up against still more binding precedent. The court squarely held that it is waivable in the state liberally and stra
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 louisiana law at issue here, act 620, is identical to the texas law and was expressly modeled on it. After a trial, the District Court ruled act 620 unconstitutional, finding no material differences between this case and whole Womans Health. On burdens, it found that act 620 would leave louisiana with just one clinic and one doctor providing abortions. At the same time, it found that act 620 would do nothing for womens health. In reversing the District Courts decision, the fifth circuit committed two fundamental errors. First, it usurped the role of the District Court and disregarded nearly all of its factual findings. Second, the fifth circuit accepted legal arguments that this court rejected four years ago. Nothing, however, has changed that would justify such a legal aboutface. In fact, even more medical organizations have joined the ama and acog to say that admitting privileges impose barriers to abortion with no benefit to patients and that this impact is not state dependent.