Proposal, calling on the increased role the federal government and the National Election process. Good morning welcome to washington journal. Its a great pleasure to be with you thisfo morning. See him before he gets your proposal and me ask about the election itself. Nahor jumped four weeks hence, record turnout and by the federal governments on statement a secure election, the most secure election in u. S. History. What are some of your observations. Things that you found surprising in this years election . Guest the election was a very secure election b all standards. But, and weeks and months leading up to the election there was a tremendous amount of litigation and dispute over how mail in ballots would be counted and other issues of electioneering. And followinghe election, as everyone is aware a terminus amount ofitigation. A fair amount of uncertainty as to how and when results could be certified. So i think it has certainly been a secure election. But it isn election and which
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